WOOD WORKER'S INJURY

Evening Star, Issue 20592, 18 September 1930, Page 10

WOOD WORKER'S INJURY

■» CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF For the purpose of hearing evidence in connection with a claim for compensation submitted by a wood working machinist (John Cooper) against the Love Construction Company* Ltd., the Arbitration Court sat this morning. His Honour Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Messrs W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith. Mr J. B, Callan appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs J. M. Paterson and J S. - Sinclair for tho defendant company. . In tho statement of claim it was set forth that tho plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a wood working machinist up to August 6, 1929. On that date ho met with an injury arising out of ami in tho course of his employment. He suffered injuries to, the index, middle, ring, and little fingers of the left hand, aiid in consequence of the injuries ho was totally incapacitated from work until November 6, 1929. Medical expenses to the amount of £1 ha’d been incurred, and.plaintiff had suffered a permanent partial incapacity whereby his wageearning capacity was permanently reduced by £2 10s a week. His average weekly earnings had been £5 12s 6d a week. Tho defendant had paid or caused to bo paid to him weekly payments under the Workers’ Compensation Act at the rate of £3 15s a week from August 6, 1929, amounting in all to £lB7 IDs, and tho plaintiff submitted to the deduction from the award thereafter claimed of all payments made by the defendant on account. The plaintiff claimed to recover;- (1) Weekly payments at £3 15s a week from August 6, 1929, to November 6, 1929; (2) weekly payments at £1 13s 4d a week from November 6, 1929, to date of payment, (3) a'lump sum, being the present value of £1 13s 4d a week for the balance of 300 weeks; (4) the sum of £1 towards medical expenses; (5) such other order as the court thought fit; (6) tho costs of the action. Mr Callan stated that the plaintiff’s case, was that tho injury was not a schedule one, and the effect on his earning capacity was very serious. _ , Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Dr R. Allan and Alexander Moore (woodwork manufacturer). For tho defence it was admitted that tho accident had taken place in tho course of the plaintiff’s employment, that the plaintiff had been-totally incapacitated from work until October 26, 1929, and that medical expenses to the amount of £1 had been incurred. However, the defendant denied that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent partial incapacity whereby his wage-earn-ing capacity bad been permanently reduced by £2 10s. Tho truth of the fifth paragraph in the statement of claim was admitted, but the defendant denied that tho plaintiff was entitled to any of the amounts claimed by him, except £1 for medical expenses. Mr Sinclair submitted that it was clearly a schedule injury, and such a view seemed to bo supported by tho plaintiff’s own doctor. If it was not a schedule injury it was difficult to know what was. Learned counsel submitted that an assessment should ho, made on the evidence supplied, with 5 per cet. off for a joint, the use of. which was lost previous to tho accident. His Honour said that as regards tho index finger the injury was not a schedule one. And since a case must be wholly schedule before it could be regarded as such he must ask the defence to continue. Evidence was then called, the witnesses being Dr Barnett and Dr Fergus. The members of the court retired; for about a quarter of an hour to consider tho case, and when they returned His Honour said that the court’s duty addressed itself to ascertaining the loss of earning power the plaintilf had suffered. In tho present case there was definite evidence that the plaintiff would be unfit to work again as a woodworking machinist. He might be able to do part of tho work, but ho would bo slow and probably there would bo some risk, more especially when ho was working with cross-grained timber. The man’s earnings had been £5 12s 6d, and as far as the court could see he was fit only for work of a comparatively unskilled nature. He might bo able to get a job as a handy man, as ho might ho able to work with some tools, but probably be would bo more suited to such work a? that of-a_ night . watchman or liftman. ' The wage'for work of this nature was approximately £3 15s a week, and it had been decided to regard Ins loss o* earning power as the differ,ence‘ between this estimate and £5 12s 6d. Judgment for £3 15s a week would be given up till November 6, 1929, and from then on till the present lime judgment would be for £1 5s a week. Future, payments for six years of liability , would be at the. rate of 25s a week, and credit would be given for payments already made. An order would bo made for the payment of costs amounting to £lO 10s, with witnesses’ expenses (£2 2s and 7s Gd), and first aid fee (£1 Is).