The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1909. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 405, 14 January 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1909. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

This week's English mail brings particulars of "a case, just decided by the Court of Appeal, which is not only of great, interest to the'; Now Zoaland public just now, when the new Workers' Compensation Act is the principal topic of discussion, but which also, as we shall see, opens \ip a lino of thought upon a most important, but hitherto overlooked, aspect of the trouble in tho mines. It appears that a man named' Moulson, when, working for his employers, dropped a stanchion, which inflicted injuries on his foot necessitating the amputation of his big toe. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts he was awarded 14s. lOd. per week during incapacity. Subsequently he was seen by a doctor on behalf of the employers, and.it was pointed out.to him that a simple operation, quite unattended ,by risk, would reßtore- hia officionoy, Tho man declined to submit to., an operation,

and his employers thereupon applied to the County Court to reduce the weekly allowance on-,tho ground that the man's attitude was unreasonable. Some time previously the Court of Appeal had had to'decide a similar case. In that case," however, the medical evidence, had shown that the > operation which, if successful, would have restored the man to health, was a really dangerous one, and the, Court of Appeal held that tho workman concerned was justified in his refusal to undergo it. In the case of Moulson, tho County Court considered itself bound by tho earlier decision, and held that whether the'operation was serious,or trivial the Court had no power to order a man to submit to surgical treatment against his will. This decision was. reversed by tho Court of, Appeal, which ordered tho County Court to reduce the amount of the weekly payment.. The propriety of this decision is beyond question, since, as one British newspaper points out, "jttst as it w;ould be hal'sh. if an employer were empowered to put before a workman the alternatives of undergoing a. dangerous operation .or losing compensation, so it would be equally intolerable if the workman were empowered to refuse normal and safe surgicil treatment but yet continue to draw compensation for a term indefinitely prolonged by his refusal." This ease will no doubt direct the attention of employers to Clause 16 of our, own new Act, which provides that no compensation shall be paid if death is caused or incapacity is caused, continued, or aggravated by "an unreasonable refusal, to submit to medical treatment, or to any surgical treatment the risk of which is, in the opinion of the Court, inconsiderable in view of the seriousness of tljie. injury or disease." This is a provision the reasonableness of which should 'appeal'to all fair-minded people. We are rather surprised, however, that it has not provoked comment. There is bound to be s'ome litigation undor this section of the Act, and it will be, interesting to see whether the growing ambition of organ-, ised Labour to bend Parliament to its will may not bring the repeal of the section within the' list of. its demands when tho time comes to amend the Act. But there is a special reason why, attention .should be drawn to the section. The principle underlying it—namely, that it is equitable that employers should not be unduly burdened by tho operation of the Act—is identical with the-principle upon which the mine-owners, with the approval of all fair-minded persons, have: based thoir attitude in the current trouble.' If it is. proper that a workman should be penalised for resisting such surgical or medical treatment as will remove an unnecessary arid unfair burden from his employer's shoulders, it is equally proper that a workman should be compelled to undergo such -medical examination as will 'protect his employer from large and unfair liabilities. It is an anomaly'that statutory recognition should bo'"given to. the ..one principle 1 , and not to the other; and the employers may quite reasonably urgo that this anomaly should bo repaired' by Parliament. ■ It-will be noted' with satisfaction that Sir' Joseph Ward' has abandoned his holiday;,trip,:for ,the time being and is returning'to Wellington. Possibly-he will seo the advisableness of accepting Mr, Massey's advice ■and convone a/special sitting- of • Pallia-, ment to amend the Act so as to end the serious' dislocation of '■ industry caused by its obnoxious provision.