ARBITRATION COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 May 1933, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

GRBYMOUTH CASES. The Greymouth sitting of the Arbitration Court, Mr Justice Frazer (President), Mr W. Cecil Prime (Employers’ assessor) and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees’ assessor), was continued this morning. The case of William David Jones (Mr P. J. O’Regan), miner, of Dunollie, v. H.M. The King (Mr F. A. Kitchingham), a claim for compensation in weekly payments on account of an accident which occurred in the James Mine, was concluded. Mr Kitchingham stated that three weeks before Mr O’Regan was instructed to take proceedings, an offer, without prejudice, was made by the company to plaintiff, on the basis of an assessment made by Dr Will The amount offered was £169/2/6. 'that offer was declined and action was then taken. Dr J. L. A. Will said he saw plaintiff this morning, and noticed a very definite change in his condition from the date of his examination in Christchurch in October. He told witness that a stiffening of the muscles ot the arm commenced about the time oi his visit to Christchurch, and that had since progressed. He considered that plaintiff had been developing a state of neurasthenia from the time ot his examination in Christchurch. V itness did not observe any state of neurasthenia at the time of his first examination. To Mr O’Regan: It was unusual toi neurasthenia to develop after a man had suffered such severe injuries as plaintiff had. There would be a. permanent disability estimated at oo 1-, per cent loss of ability to use the arm. He considered that after three months the neurasthenic condition would pass Mr Kitchingham said the amount paid into Court was on a. basis of 33 1-3 per cent of ability to use the After a short retirement the Court returned, and His Honor , gave theii decision. He -said that fiist of all he wished to clear up the point, where a plaintiff who has recovered from an accident, and who refuses what the Court considers a reasonable sum in full settlement, and who then develops neurasthenia. In such a case the Court could not regard that neurasthenia as arising from the accident. The plaintiff in such a case must take the blame. Where a reasonable offer of compensation was refused and neurasthenia developed, that neurasthenia was regarded by the Court as purely litigation-neurosis. The point is whether, when the offer was made, the plaintiff had true traumatic neurasthenia, or whether it was purely a case of litigation-neurosis. Dr Moore had said there was evidence of slight neurasthenia early in November, and that it had developed considerably since. Therefore the neurasthenia was apparent, and had developed to a certain extent, three to four weeks before the offer was made. The Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled t 6 succeed and judgment would therefore be entered for a total of £353/19/9, including the £261/6/8 paid into Court, winch plaintiff would be authorised to uplift, £lO/10/- solicitor’s fee, and £2/2/- for each of the two. medical witnesses. . The compensation was computed on the basis of full compensation to date, further full compensation for three months hence, and then compensation of 33 1-3 per cent, for the loss of the use of his left arm .from that date (three months hence).

BLACKSMITH’S CLAIM. Charles Tanner, of Greymouth, blacksmith (Mr P. J. O’Regan) claimed from Hunter and Party (Mr C. S. Thomas) compensation in weekly payments, for injuries received while employed by defendants. Mr O’Regan said that liability was admitted, and it was only the amount of compensation that was in dispute. The statement of claim set out that Charles Tanner, of Greymouth, blacksmith, while employed by the defendant company, Sydney Wilfred Morris, Charles Lance Hunter, Alfred Hill, Hubert Loveland Munson, Isaac Malpass, and Richard Stanley Spencer, trading partnership as Hunter and Party, Rewanui, on October 30, 193/, he was struck by a railway train, in consequence of which he suffered a fracture of the right tibia, fracture of several ribs, a scalp wound causing cerebral damage, and other injuries, by reason of which injuries he had since been totally disabled from working, and his injuries were serious and permanent; that his average weekly earnings were not less than £5/14/-; that he has been paid weekly compensation totalling £164; wherefore he claimed (1) a weekly payment of £3 16/-, to the date of the present trial; (2) such further compensation as may be shown reasonable; (3) costs and any other relief deemed just. The defence denied that by reason of the accident plaintiff had since been disabled or partially disabled from working or that his injuries were serious or permanent; denied that his average weekly earnings were not less than £5/14/-; admitted that plaintiff was entitled to £545/12/-; that an offer of the balance of £3Bl/12/- in full settlement, of the claim had been refused.

Hr J. F. C. Moore said he bad attended plaintiff since the accident. I-Te detailed his injuries, which he said were very serious. He still had a.

kind of paralysis on the left side of his body, could not walk without a stick, could not stand with his eyes closed, had a weakness of the muscles of the left, side, impaired movement on that side, and said he suffered a great deal from giddiness. Plaintiff also claimed that he was more deaf now than he was before the accident, but witness had never measured the degree of his deafness. The brain injuries he received might reasonably have aggravated the deafness. Witness considered he was totally disabled from working. He could not conceive of any occupation which plaintiff could take up. He was 57 years of age. Whenever he closed his eyes, he fell over. His co-ordina-tion was very poor, and this would not improve. To Mr Thomas: He did not agree with all of Dr. Baxter’s report, as in that there was no mention of plaintiff’s giddiness, his inability to walk without a stick, or his falling when he closed his eyes. Plaintiff might be able to sell papers. There was now no trouble from the ribs nor was the fracture of the tibia now a. liability. Witness considered plaintiff was about 50 per cent, paralysed on the left side. Re-examined by Mr O’Regan. Dr. Moore said he felt that plaintiff was quite honest, that he was not merely pretending. He had watched him, when plaintiff did not know he was being watched. Dr. L. G. Bell, Medical Superinten-

dent of the Grey River Hospital, said he examined plaintiff yesterday, and he agreed with Dr. Moore’s description of the case, and his conclusions. The actual brain injury seemed to witness to be his main trouble at present, and he did not see any. great chance of an improvement in his condition.

Dr. J. L. Will, orthopaethic surgeon, of Christchurch, said that when he' first saw plaintiff, he told witness he had recovered except for his left side and leg injuries. Witness thought that in all probability he suffered fiom something connected with the biam injury, and he thought that Di. Baxter, an expert in such matters, should examine him. He, with Dr. Baxter, thought that plaintiff could do light work such as gardening, or keeping a shop. They considered that the ankle injury was the most serious m February last* He understood that the ankle had become better now. Plaintiff did not walk with a stick, when examined in witness’s surgery in February. . His Honor stated that plaintiff s increased deafness, whether the result of the accident, or not, would have to be taken into consideration when making the decision, as it would affect his future employment. After a brief retirement, the Court returned, and His Honor gave judgment. He said it was common ground that the plaintiff had received very serious injuries, and that they had had permanent results. The Court had come to the conclusion that plaintiff was not fit for some of the occupations, such as a liftman, suggested by the defence, and they thought that his appearance of being a wreck would spoil his chances of getting employment, however light. He- might be able to sell papers, but he would be severely handicapped by his deafness and his lack of experience. It was difficult to see him doing much gardening, or taking a position as a caretaker or liftman. They had come to the conclusion that the only thing he was fit for was a job as a handy man about a place, getting about 10/- a week and his keep. On a percentage basis he was considered 75 per cent unfit, so it was decided that he was entitled to full compensation from September 8, 1932, and 75 per cent of full compensation for the remainder of the period of liability, six years.. Judgment would therefore be for plaintiff for £865 8/4, less £164 paid into Court, with solicitor’s fee £lO/10/-, medical expenses (two doctors) £4/4/-, and first aid fee £l/1/-.