COMPENSATION GUI

Evening Star, Issue 22989, 21 June 1938, Page 9

COMPENSATION GUI

FALL IN BUNKER SHIP'S FIREMAN'S INJURIES Alleging that he had been rendered totally incapacitated as a result of a fall sustained while in the course of his duties, James .»Gallacher proceeded against the Union Steam Ship Company claiming compensation in the Arbitration Court to-day. His Honour Mr Justice O’Regan presided, and there were associated with him Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr A. L. Montieth (employees’ representative). Air F. B. Adams appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the defendant company. According to the statement of claim, plaintiff sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on the steamer Kaimai. The accident occurred on May 15, 1937. The weekly earnings of the plaintiff exceeded £6 15s. Since the accident the plaintiff had been totally incapacitated. The defendant company paid to plaintiff the full amount of his wages at the rate fixed by his agreement up to the date when the term of his engagement expired, and also the cost of his maintenance and medical attention during the same period. The defendant company had also paid to the plaintiff various payments by way of compensation, these payments being calculated at the rate of £3 19s 2d a week from the date of the accident. The total sum paid to the plaintiff was £l7O 9s Id. None of the events specified in section 9 of the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Act, 1936, entitling the defendant to end or diminish the weekly payments of compensation payable to the plaintiff had occurred. The plaintiff had incurred medical expenses exceeding £l. The plaintiff therefore claimed from the defendant:—(a) Weekly payments of £4 10s by way of compensation commencing from May 15 (credit to be given for payments already made, and to continue until the same should be lawfully ended or diminished; or, alternatively, such Tump sum in lieu thereof as the court should think fit; (b) the sum of £l, medical expenses; (c) the costs of the proceedings; l and (d) such further or other relief as the court should deem fit. Mr Adams said that a number of the allegations contained in the statement of claim were admitted. The weekly earnings of the plaintiff in employment bad been assessed at exceeding £6 15s, which would give the maximum claim. Plaintiff’s earnings had been £264 _4s 6d over a period of 371 days, which averaged £4 19s 9d a week, to which must be added £1 for keep. _ From January 4 to May 15 plaintiff bad worked 132 days, earning £ll6 11s lOd, an average or £6 3s Bd, plus £1 for keep. Mr Adams claimed that this was the correct basis of confutation to make a maximum claim. Plaintiff had been incapacitated since his accident, and had done no work. It would probably be suggested that plaintiff was a sufferer from neurasthenia and that the incapacity did not arise from the accident. . In evidence James Gallacher said he had been employed as a fireman on the Waikouaiti, from which he was discharged. He was out of work for a few days, then joined the Kaimai again as fireman on January 4, remaining on the vessel until May 15. On that day, when the vessel was entering Westport, he was injured in an accident on board. Prior to that he had enjoyed good health, but had had influenza on the voyage, but not sufficiently severe to cause him to lie up. He had a deformity in one arm, but this bad never interfered with his work. At the time of the accident he was trimming coal in a bunker.- He had to go up on a stringer, but the ship gave a lurch and he fell backwards off the stringer. He fell five or six feet, landing on his shoulder. He felt pain in his neck, and later a swelling developed. He went to a doctor, who told him there was something wrong with his neck. The doctor gave him a liniment, but this did no good. He went back to the doctor, who ordered him to have an X-ray taken of his neck. At the hospital a nurse noticed his face was twitching. As a result of a further examination he was ordered to the Dunedin Hospital, where he was treated as an in-patient for a month. He had pains in his head and did not sleep well. After a month in hospital ho attended out-patient for about four months, undergoing violetray treatment and massage. The shoulder on which he landed when he fell now started to give him trouble and seemed to be losing strength. He went to X)r Borrie about it. Dr Borrie sent him back to the hospital as an out-patient. A fortnight s treatment was unsuccessful in bringing relief. Since then he had been applying a lotion prescribed by Dr Bprrie. He had done no work since his accident. When he went to bed his head became numb. His shoulders were weaker than formerly. Before his accident he wore glasses only for readinol, but now he had to wear them always. The sight of one eye seemed_ to be going. His hearing was also impaired. , J , To Mr Haggitt, the X-ray taken on the West Coast had revealed no traces of bones broken in his neck. Witness admitted he had received a communication from the Union Company containing a proposal for the termination of the paying of compensation. Dr Arthur Stanley Moody gave evidence of examining plaintiff on February 28 last, and twice subsequently. The left side of his face showed signs of paralysis,- and as this paralysis developed from a twitching in the face it indicated a definite injury to the plaintiff’s seventh nerve. The paralysis could not have been caused by disease. Plaintiff was not suffering from neurastheuia when witness first saw him on February 28. A subsequent examination of the cerebro-spinal fluid of plaintiff revealed sign of injury to the brain. Witness was certain that as a workman plaintiff would be incapable of doing the work he had been doing. His previous arm deformity could have played no part in plaintiff’s trouble. Witness believed that plaintiff had shown a decline since he_ first examined him. Witness then detailed the nature of the injury. Plaintiff’s fifth nerve had suffered injury which could not have been the result of a passing influenza infection. Plaintiff must, from the nature of his head injuries, have sustained a fracture at the base o.f his skull which probably would not be revealed bv an X-ray. Plaintiff also had sustained a small split on the inner part of the temple bone where the fifth and seventh nerves came together. There may have been a haemorrhage which caused twitching of the face, which would develop before the onslaught of paralysis. Plaintiff was not neurasthenic. Dr William Henry Borrie gave evidence of his first examination of plaintiff on October 8, 1937. Witness formed the opinion plaintiff was suffering from injury to the central nervous system in.

the upper cervical region and the poa terior part of the brain. Plaintiff wai then unfit for work, and still was. To Mr Haggitt, witness said In would rule out the suggestion of neuras' thenia. ... The court then adjourned, untu tlu afternoon. >