WORKER’S INJURY

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 December 1926, Page 8

WORKER’S INJURY

CHOICE OF DOCTOR. 4 ' (Per Press Association.) AUiXto'-Nl), Nov oU. An unusual point was involved ir a compensation claim by Edwir Hhurst against the Gleu.ifton Collieries, Ltd., which vis heard by the Arbitration Court to-d.>, /. Mr P. J. O’Regan sail tha the plaintiff met with an injury to.his arm on October 22 of last year. He was paid compensation for twenty-three weeks from that time at the rate of £3 15s a week,' Early in the present year, the plaintiff saw Dr Carrick Robertson, who stated that if an operation were performed, the plaintiff would be able to return to work in two or three weeks’ time. There was a delay in getting plaintiff admitted to the Auckland Hospital, the position being that he belonged to the • Waikato district, and it was contended that he should go to the Waikato Hospital. On the other hand, the doctors at Hamilton were of opinion that an operation would not be successful. The plainiff waited for some time to get into the Auckland Hospital, and then he went to the Mater •Misericordia Hospital at Auckland. Dr Robertson performed the operation. and, as predicted, the plaintiff was bac,k at work in a few weeks’ time. The question, said Mr O’Regan, was whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the full time he was out of work, and a claim for £B2 Os 2d was made. Mr Inder saicl that the Company was prepared to be fair and reasonable, but he asked could an injured employee choose his own time, his own hospital, and his own doctor, at the expense of an employer? It might go on for years. A man might decide to wait until a doctor returned from England, and such a position would be absurd. The delay in the present instance could not be attributed to the defendant company. It was necessary that a worker should take every possible step to minimise the amount of damage. ■Mr Justice Frazer said that it certainly was the plain duty of an injured worker to make every effort to reduce the amount of damage. That whs a perfectly sound rule. The point was whether the facts in the present case would square with that rule. An eminent surgeon had advised that-an operation would be successful. On the other hand, the doctors attached to the Waikato Hospital held different opinions, and they did not advise the operation. The plaintiff, as a reasonable man, would naturally shrink from having an operation in any hospital where the medical men were plainly of the opinion that an operation would be of no use. His intention to wait to be operated upon by Dr Carrick-Robert-son was perfectly reasonable, under the circumstances, and it was the only thing that he could do. “If any one of us was in a similar position, we would certainly take the same view,” proceeded his Honor. “It is provided that a man shall not get compensation if he refuses to submit to reasonable, treatment, and a man would be perfectly right if he refused to submit, to treatment, were there a dispute between the medical men. If a man refused, under those circumstances, to undergo an operation, the Court, would have to support him. Therefore, the Waikato Hospital and their medical men have to be ruled out as far as the plaintiff is concerned. The plaintiff endeavoured to get admitted to the Auckland Hospital, and when he found that he was being delayed

too long, he ‘took the bit in his teeth’ and went to the Mater Misericordia Hospital, and he spent £2l of his own money. His action has been perfectly bona fide in every way, and it cannot be held that he attempted to magnify his damage. I am quite satisfied, that is the correct view to take. The position would have been worse for the defendant company had the plaintiff not had so much faith in Dr Carrick-Robertson.” Judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with £8 8s costs.