ACCIDENT CLAIMS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 34, 3 November 1933, Page 9

ACCIDENT CLAIMS

Workers’ Compensation Cases CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE was a conflict of medical evidence in a compensation claim for injuries to a hand brought in the Arbitration Court yesterday by Michael Donovan, ’Wellington, labourer, agaiust. Geo. H. Scales Pacific, Limited, Wellington, shipping agents. His Honour, Mr. Justice Frpzer, considered that an offer of three weeks’ full compensation from June 27, made by the defendant company, was reasonable, but said that the plaintiff did not appear to have been told that he was then fit for work. In those circumstances he gave judgment for the plaintiff for the three weeks, but made no order for costs against him.

In his statement of claim plaintiff said that on March 7. 1933, while employed by the defendant company in assisting to load the s.s. Anglo-Canad-ian at Wellington, bis left hand was crushed by a dump of wool. In consequence of the accident be bad been disabled and bad been advised that such disablement would continue for some time to come. . Compensation bad been received from the defendant company at the rate of £2/18/8 a week from the date of the accident till June 27, since when, he alleged, none had been paid. Plaintiff now claimed compensation from June 27 and any further relief the court might allow. The company denied that the injury had caused disablement for the period alleged, and stated that on June 27 it had tendered three weeks’ compensation in full settlement, but the plaintiff had not accepted it. The company had now paid into court the sum of £B/15/as full settlement of . the claim. This was the amount his Honour directed should be paid to the plaintiff. ' Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. W. E. Leicester for the defendant company. A Second Claim. Another claim against the same company was brought by David Stewart. Wellington, waterside worker, who, when working as a casual labourer unloading timber from the Golden Harvest ou June 3, 1933, had a thumb and thumb nail crushed by a piece of timber. Plaintiff claimed that by this injury he had temporarily become totally incapacitated and would remain so for some indefinite time. His average weekly earnings at the time of the accident were not less than £6/12/-, arid be claimed a weekly payment of £-1 for the period of incapacity, computed into a lump sum. Here again there was a conflict of medical evidence as to the extent of plaintiff’s Incapacity for work. “It is a perfectly simple injury,” said his Honour in giving judgment, "and there is a straight-out difference of opinion between two sets of doctors. The question is whether the. plaintiff is to be paid for three and a half weeks or seven. All we can do is to split the difference and make it five weeks, which could have been done without bringing the matter before the court.” In saying this, however, his Honour did not impute any fault to counsel, as an attempt at a settlement had proved unsuccessful.

In this case Mr. F. AV. Ongley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. E. ■ Leicester for the defendant company.