RESULT OF A FALL

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 130, 28 November 1924, Page 11

RESULT OF A FALL

COMPENSATION CASE

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

A case involving a claim for compensation for injuries received as the result o£ an accident was before the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer presided, with Messrs. Scott and Hunter as assessors for the employers and employees respectively.

Alfred Goddard, gardener, of Wellington, claimed compensation from John William Davis, merchant, for injuries received while in the employ of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that while employed as gardener by defendant' on 29th August, 1923, he fell over a bank, a distance of about 20 feet, 'in consequence of which he suffered injuries to his back as a result of which plaintiff remained totally disabled from work and was permanently incapacitated from earning wages. The plaintiff had received since the accident ,±>2 lls Id a week as compensation, liability to which was admitted. Plaintiff's average earnings were stated to be £4 18s 6d." The claim was for a continuance of the amount claimed so long ais permanent disability continued. •

The defence was an admission of liability for compensation for permanent partial incapacity, but not for permanent total incapacity.

Air. P. J. O'Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. P. B. Cooke for the defendant.

Dr. Faulke gave evidence that the plaintiff was permanently affected as to the lumbar region of the spine. The plaintiff .could not stand erect, and was quite incapacitated for any kind of work. He could not see any prospect ot improvement. . A bony tissue had • formed preventing the plaintiff torn standing upright. | Witness produced X-ray photographs to show abnormal growth on plaintiff's spine. The condition was not typical of any known disease.. Plaintiff" had tried to work until he absolutely had to stop., He considered that the man was entitled to full compensation. To Mr. Cooke: The symptoms of the man's disease were not typical or characteristic of any known complaint. He could not give it a name. Neither Dr. I Hector nor witness believed that it was a case of spondulitis. To Mr. p'Regan : Spondulitis was equally as disabling a-s myositis. Further evidence was given by Dr. P. D. Cameron, radiologist, who stated' that he had never seen such a condition of the vertebral, column before. He did not' think the abnormal, boiiy tissue would disappear. Copies of Dr. Hector's report were put in, with the opinion that the plaintiff's condition was undoubtedly due to his accident. ■ • FOE THE DEFENCE. ' . For. the defence, Dr. Ernest William Giesen described examining the plaintiff thirteen months ago, after he had come out of hospital. Plaintiff's condition had I not improved during that time. Witness I attributed plaintiff's condition to spon- ! dulitis or arthritis deformans. Rigidity .i in the back did not totally disable a man.. Plaintiff was disabled by more j or less continuous pain. This might disappear as the rigidity of the back in- I creased. Men. with rigid backs- could still do useful work. ■ Witness might expect him still to continue his work as a gardener; in fact, that might' be one of the most suitable occupations, lne spondulitis had not progressed To Mr. O'Regan: He did not think the. man had yet reached a stage whenhe would be fit for work. Possibly he ' might be right in another year At this stage, his Honour "suggested that m view of the evidence it might be better to deal with the matter on the assumption that the plaintiff would be incapacitated for some time to come yet but would be ultimately able to follow his occupation. The parties might agree that a lump sum should be paid equivalent to -weekly payments for. 15 or 18 months. If it were found at the end of that period that he were, still disabled application might be made to the Court again.

The evidence of Dr. Eardley Fenwick was heard to the effect that the plaintiff was suffering from spondulitis deormamvand w as likely to be incapacitated for 18 months probably . Dr. Myers, radiologist, examining Xray photographs, described the case as one of typical spondulitis. -' . : " . After a short- retirement, the Court announced its award of a lump B nin at the rate of 79 weeks at £2 lls Id a week and a further 150 weeks at 5s a weeE for loss due to limitation of ranee of employment, together with costs of i-a 9s and witnesses' expenses. The amount was reckoned as £230 2s'4d and costs.