COMPENSATION MONEY

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 October 1931, Page 2

COMPENSATION MONEY

ATTACHED FOR HOSPITAL FEES. An interesting argument was put up at the Blenheim Magistrate’s Court when a crippled man named George F. McMahon appeared in answer to a judgment summons issued by the Marlborough Hospital Board in respect to a debt of £126 0/6 incurred by way of hospital fees (reports the “Express”). Mr C. T. Smith, who represented the debtor, explained that he was a waterside worker, who had been seriously injured in the course of his occupation, with the result that he had been in the hospital for a lengthy term, and was left with a permanently incapacitated leg. Since judgment was obtained by the Hospital Board, the debtor had received the sum of £350 by way of compensation for his accident, but the whole of this sum would be required for his maintenance until such time as he was able to resume work —if ever. Counsel advanced the argument that if the debtor were compelled to pay his debt to the Board, he would soon become a charge upon the Board—or the State—for maintenance. He went on to refer his Worship to Section 60 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides that compensation moneys cannot be attached.

His Worship said he could not subscribe to an argument that if a man were injured he was entitled to pocket his compensation moneys and leave the ratepayers to pay his hospital and medical fees. Though he felt sympathy for the defendant he could not see that it was public policy.

Replying to questions by his Worship, Mr A. C. Nathan, who appeared for the Bodrd, said the debtor had offered 50 per cent, of the amount, and the Board had made a counter offer to accept 75 per cent., but this had been turned down in no uncertain manner. Counsel also stated that before receiving the £350 lump sum referred to by Mr Smith, the debtor had been paid during his illness at the rate of £3 8/5 per week, the total received under this heading being £ll7. The actual hospital fees totalled £ll7 6/-, so that the debtor, who was a single man, could have paid his fees out of the receipts while actually in the hospital. Mr Smith argued that, as the debtor was incapacitated and could not work, it was his duty to provide for his future maintenance and the Board was not entitled *o take his compensation from him.

His Worship said he could not subscribe to that view, and he would make an order unless the parties arrived at a settlement.

Mr Nathan: My friend tells me they are not prepared to renew the offer of 50 per cent. His Worship: In that case, I will make an order.

Finally an order was made, with a default of two months’ imprisonment, but his Worship suspended the issue of the warrant for a month in order to enable the parties to confer.