COMPENSATION COURT Penalty payment awarded

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33382, 14 November 1973, Page 13

COMPENSATION COURT Penalty payment awarded

A Christchurch City Coun-i ;cil workman, George James! Billens, has been awarded a penalty payment of SIOO under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act, 1956, for the unlawful stoppage of his weekly compensation payments, by Judge A. P. Blair in a reserved decision given in the Compensation Court. Mr Billens sought the penalty ‘payment in an action against the Christchurch City Council on the -ground that the sudden cutting ! off of compensation payment was I an embarrassment and a hardship ' to him. An application by the council to end Mi- Billens’s weekly compensation payments was refused i by Judge Blair, who said, howI ever, that the council might think i it proper to apply for an order I in about six months. Mr S. P. Graham appeared for Mr Billens, and Mr D. H. Hicks for the council. The case was I heard on October 29. Mr Billens had back trouble! , for several years, and in 19671 I went on to compensation for an injury to his back suffered atl work, said Judge Blair. The) matter was settled by a lumpsum payment in February, 1969. | At that time. Mr Billens said that! he was certified for light duties! ; only PAYMENTS STOPPED While employed by the Christchurch City Council, Mr Billens i injured his back at work on November 25, 1971. and had not ! worked since. On April 25; 1972, his weekly workers’ compensation payments were somewhat abruptly stopped by the insurance company of the council. Mr ! Billins was granted sickness bene- ; fits which varied between $22 and $29 a week, compared with the weekly payment of S3B under ’the Workers’ Compensation Act. In August. 1973, the council conceded that it had made an! ■error in terminating payments! ’ without obtaining the necessary; iorder to do so, and refunded to' Mr Billens, in lump sums, the amounts of compensation due! j to him from April 25, 1972, to| I the time of payment. From the $2200 Mr Billens re-1 iceived, he refunded about $1115; to the Department of Social Wei-1 I fare in relation to the sickness ‘benefit he had received, Judge ! Blair said. ■ Mr Hicks submitted that the ; incapacity from which Mr Billens | suffered was not related to the Occident of November, 1971. That submission was based on the ! opinion in evidence of an ortho- ; paedic surgeon There was a difI ference of opinion on many 1 aspects of the case between the

surgeon and Mr Billens’s own doctor. NEUROSIS FACTOR “I am of the opinion, having, heard the medical evidence and' that of Mr Billens, that the most prominent factor in the case is, the existence of anxiety neurosis,” said Judge Blair. “I can; have no doubt that it would be, in the best interests of Mr. Billens to begin working again,: and 1 would like to remove the crutch of weekly payments in order to give a motive for doing so.” Mr Billens needed treatment of a psychological nature in conjunction with his return to work. His present incapacity was a real one, and in the light of the medical evidence he could not take the responsibility of ending or diminishing weekly payments, Judge Blair said. “I consider, however, that Mr Billens should be told that he should not expect to remain on compensation indefinitely, and that he should seek specialised medical advice with a view to his ■ returning to useful work. “I do not think that this is aj case in which the indemnifying: company should be required to pay a penalty of approximately’ $2200. Though the action in ter-1 minating payments was in breach of the law, the action was not, as 1 understand it, in defiance of the law. It occurred through: inexperienced staff- handling the matter, and was done pursuant; to a medical opinion, that Mr Bil-; lens had recovered in respect of I the 1971 accident. ‘However, the insurance com-j pany did not persist in this atti-' tude alter legal opinion had been: received, and subsequently paid! to Mr Billens the whole of the weekly payments in arrears. “The primary purpose of subsection 5 of the act is not to give a bonus to the worker because default has occurred, but rather to provide a sanction against unilateral action by an employer. In cases where there has been a flagrant abuse of the law it is proper that a heavy penalty should be imposed. In general, the penalty should be relative to the degree of culpitude and the injury done to the worker bydefault. •Bearing this in mind, J think that tlie circumstances of this lease the employer should be re- : lieved from liability except to i the extent of $100.” said Judge j Blair.