COMPENSATION LAW

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 139, 13 June 1924, Page 6

COMPENSATION LAW

When hearing a motion for a new trial upon a compensation claim recently, the Chief Justice remarked that claims in which there was a dispute regarding injuries and earning power should not be tried by juries. It would be much better if they were determined by a Judge and two assessors, medical experts. The "New Zealand Medical Journal" supports this view, and even goes further by advocating similar methods in the Arbitration Court.

We think (states thev "Journal") that the Arbitration Court as at present constituted is not tho best tribunal, and permits of too great a margin of error. When an assessment has to be made upon the nature and extent Os. physical disablement following accident, the most satisfactory tribunal is a Judge or Magistrate and two doctors one'of the doctors being appointed by each side to the dispute, and a third doctor as a referee in case of serious difference of opinion. We think the British Medical Association lias advocated this reform, but so far with no success, and it is satisfactory to find tnat the opinion of the association has m general the weighty authority and support of the Chief Justice

As the law stands at present, actions under the Workers' Compensation Act are tried by the Arbitration Court, except where the claim is for a small amount, when it may be decided by a Magistrate, sitting alone. The actions which come before the Supreme Court and a jury are those in which the claimant is not suing his employer, or where the worker alleges negligence and claims greater compensation than is provided for in the Workers' Compensation Act. Claims under the Workers' Compensation Act are, we believe, much more numerous than those made at common law, and it is equally important, therefore, that the method of deciding those claims should be placed, upon as sound a basis as the common law machinery. Great pains have been taken to ensure a sound basis by laying down an exact system for assessing compensation according to the injury sustained. But the Legislature has not discovered a means ! for ensuring equal exactitude in determining the degree of injury. If the worker has lost an arm or leg there can be no dispute, but ;f the limb is injured but not lost opinions will differ as to the degree of injury. ' The Court now has power to appoint medical referees, but that power seems to be rarely exercised. Would not the appointment of referees meet, in a measure, the proposal for expert and impartial medical assessment 1 So far as we are aware, there is no similar provision for the trial of cases in the Supreme Court, though it is needed there qven more because there is not the scale of compensation to-reduce the possibility of error. The whole sub-

ject is one which may well be considered if an inquiry concerning workers' compensation is decided upon. The present state of the law is certainly not wholly satisfactory. It leads sometimes to laymen being called upon to decide a dispute between doctors. No doubt the writer in the " Medical Journal " appreciates the absurdity of such a- position—hence the proposal to appoint medical assessors.