COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS. A MEDICAL ASPECT.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 36, 11 August 1905, Page 4

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS. A MEDICAL ASPECT.

Dr. Herbert O. Faulke last night delivered a lecture before the Insurance Institute of New Zealand on "The Mcdi • cal Aspect of the Workers' Compensation for Occidents Act." Dr. Faulke Baid that his official connection with the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation had given, him such opportunitiea of seeing weak points in the Act, from a surgeon's view, as he thought no other medical practitioner in the colony could have had, and therefore he thought it sv public duty to let others know what appeared to him 'to be faults that might be corrected. He thought that the underlying principle of "workers' compensation" legislation was that the industry should bear the cost of the accident t,o the worker. To the doctor's mind, the chief points that needed clearing up were — (1) Was a slight injury that was tho exciting cause of starting disease in a person who had a predisposition to that disease (which injury would not have I done harm, of any moment if that, person I had been of sound constitution) to bo considered answerable for such disease? and (2) When disease was pre-existent, and after a slight injury took an un- | favourable turn, or had a fatal termination, was the injury to be considered responsible? I Dr. Faulke thought there was nothing in the Act that would guide one ia I answering these questions ; and as for Court rulings, the decisions given in tho British Courts seemed (at any rate, to the non-legal mind) confusing and conflicting. In the New Zealand Arbitration Court there were practically no rulings bearing upon this subject, with tho exception, of Gates v. Webb, in which the claimant suffered' from neurasthenia after the actual effects of the injury had probably passed off. In the judgment of tho Arbitration Court it was held that the claimant's condition was a consequence of the accident, despite the fact that it was a consequence that would probably only be generated in a more or less morbid subject. This judgment seemed to imply that disease excited by injury j was liable for compensation under tho [ Act, in bpite of the previotfs existence of a predisposition to that disease. Dr. Faulke also dealt with diseases respecting which the Act, through not being explicit, often mnde it most difficult to saj- certain conditions should come under its provisions or not. These were active suppurative inflammation of bone, tubercle of bone or joint, s.tont in kidney, diseases peculiar to nny onu industry, and recurrent injuries. The doctor thought it would prevent possible misunderstanding if it was made perfectly clear that industrial diseases were not included in the New Zealand Workers' Compensation Act. A long and interesting discussion took place on the subject-matter of tho address. The speakers were Drs. Poilen, Gilmer, Jl'Kenzie, and Webster and Messrs. R. M. Simpstti, Morris Fox, I. Muter, C. M. Montefiore, O. Becre, H. Field, W. A. Parton, and F. Kelling. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Dr. Faulko for his paper, and to the other medical and legal visitors for their attendance and light.