COMPENSATION CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 113, 6 February 1937, Page 13

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Injury to Watersider EARNING CAPACITY NOT IMPAIRED A weekly payment its for permanent partial Incapacity arising from an accident on tile Wellington waterfront on Ju e 30. 1930, was sought in the Arbitration Court yesterday by Denis Reidy, waterside worker. The claim was opposed by the 44 ellington Harbour Board. Mr. Justice Page presided, and with him were Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers’ assessor) and Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees’ assessor). Plaintiff was represented by Mr. F. W. Ongley. and defendant company by Mr. G. g'. G. Watson. According to the statement of claim plaintiff received hernia while wheeling a truck loaded with ironbark blocks in the course of his work for defendant company as a casual wharf-lab-ourer. The accident occurred when he was giving the truck an extra lift i Q order to tip it. His average earnings were not less than £5/2/10 a week. He suffered temporary total incapacitation up to August 11, 15136, for which he drew compensation up to August 1, 1936, and also permanent partial incapacitation in that he could never again do work involving heavy lifting, So that his average weekly earnings would be reduced by not less than £2 a week. Plaintiff therefore Claimed payment of £3/6/7 a week from August 1 to 11, 1936, and a weekly payment as for permanent partial incapacity of £l/6/8 a week. Plaintiff in evidence described the accident and the manner in which bls hernia was treated. He found considerable inconvenience in wearing a truss, and was off work for seven or eight weeks. He then started on a light job, loading lambs on the Cambridge for most of one day. He was then put to loading beef, with the result that the pain of the hernia returned and he had to abandon the job. He now had to pick his jobs as be was afraid to tackle heavy work. In reply to Mr. Ongley witness said he knew he could not undergo an operation. Questioned by Mr. Watson, witness denied he had drawn average wages since returning to work. Medical Evidence. Dr. L. G. Austin said in evidence that he examined plaintiff on June 30 and advised a radical cure for hernia. Plaintiff W’Otild be unable to do heavy work and would lack confidence in taking strains. Witness preferred an operation as a truss was only a makeshift and not an effective safeguard. In bis opinion plaintiff’s condition would become worse. Witness was examined at length by Mr. Watson on the symptoms and incidence of hernia. In reply to his Honour, witness said he would not expect a mtin receiving a sudden onset of hernia to go on working for half an hour. Dr. D. M. Patterson deposed to an examination of plaintiff on July 15. 1936. He concluded a hernia of the direct variety was present, but because of weakness in the abdominal muscles he opposed an operation. His view was that plaintiff would never do heavy work again. An application by Mr. Watson for a non-suit was refused. He then pointed out that compensation had been paid for temporary incapacity, and claimed that as the case stood there was no evidence of future incapacity. Plaintiff’s weekly earnings since the accident had been as high as £B. Further, there wag evidence on all sides, including that of eminent authorities, that a man wearing an efficient truss was fit for ordinary work. His Honour remarked that plaintiff’s earnings since the accident appeared to Show nn even higher average than his earnings before. After further retirement, the court gave a majority ruling that plaintiff had been compensated for over a month during which he had time to got used to wearing a truss. The evidence showed that plaintiff’s earning power had not been impaired, and judgment must be given for defendant. In a dissenting opinion Mr. Monteith said that in ordinary cases of hernia there should be a declaration of liability, and a suspensory judgment should be given.