COMPENSATION CASES

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 8

COMPENSATION CASES

Effect Of Amendment Questioned

COURT OF /APPEAL TO DECIDE

Arguing yesterday a case stated by Mr. Justice O’Regan, of the Court of Arbitration, for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, counsel for defendant iu a worker’s claim for compensation contended that the findings of the medical committee for the examination of claimants, set up by Parliament in 1936, could not be upset in the Court of Arbitration to which the case might be carried later. Opposing counsel contended that there was a limitation on what could be referered to the committee. In the case before the court plaintiff alleged he had a broken rib, which the committee's certificate did not set down as the cause of disability. Plaintiff claimed that while he was at work on July 6, 1937, a heavy trestle fell from a height and struck him on the chest aud fractured a rib. He was totally incapacitated for work, and would continue so indefinitely. His weekly earnings at the time of the accident were £5/6/6, and he claimed a sum computed from that according to the Act. Defendants denied that plaintiff was more than temporarily incapacitated by the accident. A second defence was that if plaintiff was still incapacitated for work it was not the result of the accident, and a third defence was that the medical committee had certified that he had recovered from the accident injuries, and his then disability was due to heart disease, and the injuries had had no material influence in the causation o£ the disease.

On September 15 plaintiff was examined by three registered medical practitioners, comprising the medical committe, Dre. E. Gordon Anderson, D. Whyte, and J. M. Twhigg, who gave a certificate expressing the opinion that he was unfit for work, but as the result of heart disease, which had not been caused by the accident, and that oufiicient time had elapsed for him to recover from any injury. The Court of Appeal was asked whether the certificate was conclusive evidence that plaintiff had recovered from the accident injuries when examined, whether the Court of Arbitration cousd deal with his claim notwithstanding the findings of the medical committee, and whether the admitted and proved facts were a complete defence. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Blair, and Mr, Justice Fair were on the bench. Plaintiff, Edward James Ashby, waterside worker, was represented by Mr. F. W. Ongley, aud defendant, the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company, Ltd., was represented by Mr. E. D. Blundell. Mr. Blundell, who, it was agreed, should open, said the case turned on the construction of subjections 1 and 2 of section 9 of the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 1936, which made provision for the first time in New Zealand for the appointment of a medical board of three practitioners. He submitted that the certificate that plaintiff had recovered was binding on the Court of Arbitration, which might not entertain evidence io the contrary, and that the Act gave "statutory authority for the findings of the medical practitioners to be substituted for the decisions of the Court of Arbitration. Mr. Ongley submitted that the determination of the matter depended on whnt the Act said could be referred to the committee and on the committee’s report on that question. Only two’questions could arise for the committee to answer : Whether a man was fit for work and. if he was unfit, whether it was due to the accident. Decision was reserved.