WHARF ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 159, 1 April 1930, Page 4

WHARF ACCIDENT

INJURY BY CRANE GEAR further compensation Knocked down and injured by the ball of a crane in May, 1928, while working on the Wellington waterfront, Herbert D. Jamieson, wharf labourer, brought; a claim in the Arbitration Court yesterday against the New Zealand Shipping Company for compensation on the basis of permanent total incapacity. Mr. F. W. Ongley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H, F. O’Leary for the defendant company.

The facts, as stated, were that plaintiff was, on May 14,1928, when employed by the company as a casual worker, picking up a lanyard when he was struck on the small of the back by the ball of a crane. He fell, and was again struck in the back by the ball while lying down. He claimed to have sustained permanent total disability. His average earnings had been £5/15/-, and the company had paid him £233/12/4 as compensation for a period of OS weeks to October 5, 1029. He claimed a lump sum for total incapacity on a basis of £3/16/0 a week. On behalf of the company the facts were admitted, but not the statement as to total permanent incapacity. Dr. S. D. Kbind said that he examined plaintiff in December, 1928; and found injury to the spine. Some X-ray photographs of the injury were taken, and subsequently he concluded that there was a compression fracture. Plaintiff had been under treatment, and witness believed he would shortly make a gradual but good recovery. He should be fit for heavy work in 12 months, but he was not fit for it at present. . • .. Replying to Mr. O’Leary, witness said it was not a case of neurasthenia, for the man was singularly free from it. Evidence was also given by Drs. T. D. Cameron and J. B. Twigg. Contentions for Defendant. Mr. O’Leary said there was some difference of opinion amongst the medical men as to the nature of the injury. It was a case of neurasthenia in which plaintiff would have recovered more quickly had it been possible to come to the Court sooner to effect a settlement. The medical evidence was that plaintiff would be fit for heavy work in twelve mouths, but counsel suggested that six months would be ample time to allow.

Dr. Giesen said that he had examined plaintiff some time after the accident and could not find anything physically the matter with him. The “pins and needles” sensation experienced he believed to be purely neurasthenia. Witness saw plaintiff again a few days ago, and he was still neurasthenic. He disagreed with the medical opinion given on behalf of plaintiff ns to the compression fracture of the spine, and said he believed it to be localised bruising. Settling the case would have a beneficial effect on plaintiff.

Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative on the Court) said the Court had a case at Christchurch in which the medical evidence was similar to that of Dr. Giesen, and the Court gave the man compensation for a further six months. The man showed no improvement after the case was settled, and now he would always be a sufferer.

Mr. O’Leary mentioned that compensation had been paid up to date. After a brief retirement. His Honour said the Court had come to the conclusion that there was partial physical involvement and partial neurasthenia, and had decided to allow plaintiff 39 weeks’ compensation at half rates, amounting to £75/10/4, £l2/12/- costs, and witnesses’ and medical expenses, it was agreed that he was fit for light work, but having been out of work for two years it would take some little time to break him in to a normal heavy day’s work.