INJURED KNEE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1931, Page 9

INJURED KNEE

SUBSEQUENT ILLNESS

QUESTION OF LIABILITY

A compensation case with unusual fciiturca was decided by the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon. The plaintiff, Alfred George Cottrell, motor salesman, claimed compensation from Trucks, Ltd., in respect of an accident which occurred in March, 1029.

Mr. P. J. O'Jvegan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. W. K. Leicester i'or the; defendant.

The plaintiff alleged that as a result of having his right knee and leg injured while lie was in the defendant company's employment he had been totally disabled from working. Certain weekly payments of compensation had been made, but the parties had been unable to agree on an amount in settlement. A claim was made for £3 6s 8d a week from the date of the lastpayment aud any other sum considered reasonable.

The defence contended that if it were established that the plaintiff was totally disabled his condition was due to septic poisoning iv September, 1929, and not to the original injury.

Mr. O'Began said it was not suggested that the plaintiff's present condition was entirely due to the accident, but it had been found impossible to arrive at a settlement.

Lengthy medical evidence was called in an endeavour to establish the extent to which the plaintiff's disablement was due to tin: injury.

In delivering Uit; judgment of the Court. Air. Justice Frazcr said that the case had buoi quite au interesting one, although after hearing the . evidence and considering the legal points there was not very much difficulty in deciding it. A. certain amount of guesswork had been necessary. On the whole of the medical evidence, the Court would say that whatever the plaintiff thought about it, his knee was really all right. However, he believed that it was a very bad .Knee. That was 'an1 hysterical condition of! which all the medical men had spoken, and which was present when he went into hospital in. September, 1929. While ho was there he was. so seriously ill that tho hysteria entirely disappeared, but at some later period it revived. The extreme probability was that seeing that tho hysteria was localised in the knee'before the sepsis arose it was the same hysteria. It was- impossible 1.0 avoid the conclusion that tho hysteria at present was Uio same type nnd arose from tho same cause as that which was present when the man came out of hospital. Taking that view, the proper course seemed to bo to blot out the period of twelve months 'in. hospital altogether. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation up to the time he went into hospital and again from the time he came out to the present, and nine weeks longer. Compensation totalling £130 17s 3*l was awarded, with £10 10s costs and £2 2s witness's expenses.