ARBITRATION COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 April 1938, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT

( SITTING AT GREYMOUTH a COAL-MINER’S CLAIM The sitting of the Arbitration - Court at Grey mouth was continued - to-day, before Mr. Justice O’Regan . (President), Mr. W. Cecil Prime (em- - ployers’ representative), and Mr.- A. . L. Monteith (employees’ representat tive). , The first case for hearing this morning, was a claim for compensation by James Patrick Ruane, miner, of Dobson, against the Grey Valley Collieries Ltd., of Christchurch, coal mine proprietors, arising out of an accident which occurred in the Dobson Mine, on December 21, 1936. Mr. W. Douglas Taylor appeared for plaintiff. Mr. J. W. Hannan, and with him, Mr. W. J. Kemp (Wellington), represented the defendant company. The statement of claim set out (1) that on December 21, 1936, and for some time prior thereto, plaintiff was employed by the defendant at its coal mine at Dobson as shiftman; (2) that on December 21, 1936, whilst so employed, plaintiff met with personal injury by accident, as a result whereof he suffered a fracture of the right leg; (4) the said accident arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment; (5) by reason of the accident, plaintiff has been totally disabled down to the present time, and will for some time to come be totally disabled from following his usual employment; (6) the weekly earnings of plaintiff at the time of the accident were £4/12/6; (7) defendant had paid to plaintiff the sum of £ll6/17/-, by way of compensation; (8) defendant had not paid £1 towards plaintiff’s medical expenses; (9) wherefore the plaintiff claimed (a) a weekly sum of £3/1/8, to commence from December 21, 1936 (credit being given for £ll6/17/-) and to continue until the same is ended, diminished or redeemed or such lump sum, in lieu thereof as the Court should think fit; (b) the sum of £1 medical expenses; (c) costs of the action; (d) such further or other re- : lief as may be just. 1 The statement of defence admitted the allegations contained in para- * graphs 1,2 and 4 of the statement, 1 but denied the allegations in para- < graph 5. It. was claimed that by rea-. 1 son of the accident, plaintiff was to- 1 tally disabled from following his usual i occupation until September 20, 1937, 1 but was able to return to work at that 1 date. It was denied, however, that : any incapacity occurred through or as ( the result of plaintiff’s employment I after September 20, 1937, by the de- i fendant company. The. allegations 1 contained in paragraphs 6,7, and 8 of t the statement of claim were admitted, 1

Opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. Taylor said that he was unfortunate enough to have his accident just before the 1936 Amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act came into operation. He had a half-inch shortening of the leg, as the result of an accident 11 years ago, but it was now an inch and a-half short. He was" an experienced miner, with some 40 years’ mine work, and had been in constant employment prior to the accident, being the type of man who was reserved for the more difficult work in the mine. They claimed that his work as a coal-miner was now finished, and that the only work that was open to him was that of the caretaker type. He had done no work since the accident, and Dr. Moore estimat-, ed his disability at 50 per cent. He was a nervous, fluttery type of man, and this had been increased by the accident. He (Mr. Taylor) understood that allegations would be made that he left the West Coast and medical treatment, without permission of the medical officer, but he would call Dr. Barrett in rebuttal. He understood, also, that allegations would be made that plaintiff had abused himself during convalescence, and he assumed that meant excessive drinking. However, he would call evidence on that point also. Mr. Hannan said that there would be no suggestions regarding plaintiff’s conduct. The whole question would be that of his present condition.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that the accident occurred through a fall of stone and timber, while he was working as shiftman, clearing up the side of the dip. The stone work in the jjiine, which he was on, was the most difficult and was reserved for the experienced miners. He received a fracture of the right femur, and was thirteen weeks in hospital. After he came out, he had to report to Dr. Barrett every month, until July, when the doctor gave him two months for further recovery. In August, he went to Gore, but returned to report to the doctor within the two months. In hospital, his nervous condition was pretty bad —at times the nurses had to steady his tea-cup while he drank. He was slightly nervous before the accident, but he became much worse after. Following the fracture of the leg he suffered 11 years before, his leg was only a shade shorter. He had attempted to cut blackberries since the leg had mended, but the pain made him stop after about 10 minutes. He had difficulty in walking over rough ground, and the pain sometimes kept him awake at nights. He could not work in competition with an ablebodied man, and there was no hope of his being able to do his old work underground in the mine. To Mr. Hannan: It was about 11 years before that he had the previous accident to the leg, but the shortening did not then affect him. He could now move his leg, but it pained him.

To His Honor: He was 58 years of age, last August. Almost all of his working life had been spent in coal mines. Dr. H. C. Barrett, Medical Superintendent of the Grey Hospital, said that plaintiff was admitted to the Hospital shortly after the accident. Witness found that he was suffering from a moderate degree of shock, and bruising. He complained of pain in the right thigh and the right side of the chest. Examination showed a fracture about the middle of the right thigh, but there were no other serious injuries. His condition was not good for a few days, and about a fortnight later, he developed bladder trouble. He then improved, but appeared very shaky. He was discharged from Hospital on March 22, walking with crutches and sticks. In accordance with witness’s instructions, he reported back at six-weekly intervals. Witness saw him on October 4, and then again last night. On October’ 4, he told witness that he was getting some pain in the thigh, that he had difficulty in walking on rough ground, or in remaining on his feet all day. On examination, he appeared generally older than his years, shaky in the hand and head. The measurements

showed that there was a one-inch

shortening of the right thigh owing to the fracture, there also being a half-inch shortening, as the result of ' a previous fracture. The right thigh : showed wastage, and the movements of the knee joints were difiicult. At that time, witness formed the opinion that he was fit for some .sort of light work, and that his knee would probably improve. Witness made another examination yesterday,- when plaintiff stated that he had weakness and shaking if he attempted to do anything, that he did not sleep well because of pain in the right thigh, and that he suffered pain if he attempted to lift heavy weights. In witness’s opinion, his condition had improved. The shaking had improved but was still evident. The organs appeared to be quite healthy. The movements of the joints had not improved, blit, there was less grating in the knee. To Mr. Taylor: Witness attributed the pain in the knde to the stiffening of the joint, and the adherence of muscles to the new bone round the fracture. In witness’s opinion he could never resume work as a coalminer, and the only work he could do was where he did not have to walk about on rough ground, although he would be handicapped in competition with able-bodied men on roadmen’s work. One must attribute a large part of his nervousness to his injury, and the complications which followed. It would improve, but he did not think he would ever be as before the accident. To Mr. Hannan: His knee joint would prevent him from doing work in a coal-mine, and it was doubtful if it would improve.

To Mr. Monteith: It would be a matter of years before his- neryous com dition reached its maximum improvement. To Mr. Prime: The settlement of claims often had an effect on neurasthenic cases. To His Honor: This was more than an ordinary case of neurasthenia, and he did not think the settlement of the case would make much difference. At this stage Mr. Taylor intimated that as the defence would not raise the question of plaintiff’s conduct, he would not call the evidence on the point that he had intended. Dr. J. F. C. Moore said that he examined plaintiff on February 10, 1938, and last night, and he corroborated the general findings of Dr. Barrett. On the whole, plaintiff was in a poor physical condition. His lungs showed evidence of recurrent bronchial trouble, which would mitigate against his recovery. Witness was of the, opinion that he was of a definitely neurasthenic type. The shortness of thigh placed additional .strain on the knee and prevented the arthritis present on that joint from settling. The heavy boot worn to overcome the shortening also increased the knee disability. Witness was of the opinion that when the neurasthenia had settled, there would be a permanent disability of 50 per cent. To Mr. Taylor: He attended plaintiff for the fracture 11 years ago. He was then a nervous man, but his condition was now worse. Witness did not think that plaintiff would ever be able to work on rough surfaces, such as in a coal mine, nor that he could ever compete in such work as wheeling a barrow. Witness thought that the nervous condition would largely clear up in three months, but that there would be a permanent disability of 50 per cent. • - ' This concluded the case for plaintiff.

CASE FOR DEFENCE Opening the case for the defence, . Mr. Hannan said that he proposed to call Dr. Will, the whole question being one of incapacity. Dr. Will agreed with the medical evidence given so far as it related to shortening and movement, but he was of the opinion that the injured leg had so far recovered as not to interfere with plaintiff’s earning capacity and that his incapacity was due to his general physical condition and nervousness, arising from trouble with the prostate gland, which was present before the accident. Dr. J’. L. Will, of Christchurch, said that he examined plaintiff twice, in September last, and that day. He agreed with the clinical findings of Dr. Barrett, when he made the examination in September. That day, however he could find no wastage of the knee, no thickening df the joint, and there was less creaking in the right knee. He looked upon the creaking of both knees as an occupational condition, although it was more pronounchalf in the injured leg. The leg disability thus consisted of an inch and ahalf shortening, some limitation of fall flexion and some creaking. He believed that, with some work, the symptoms of which plaintiff complained would disappear, enabling him to do every type of labouring work. He had a physical disability in his shortening, which required compensation, as it slowed his movements and was not able to stand sustained effort. Witness estimated that disability at 10 per cent., although it might not interfere with his wage-earning capacity. The emotional condition would accelerate plaintiff’s nervous tremor, and he believed its removal would cause a settling down. To Mr. Hannan: In witness’s opinion, plaintiff’s physical disability, due to the accident, was 10 per cent. There was general disability due to bladder trouble, which he would not associate with the accident. To Mr. Taylor: Witness denied that his first examination lasted only three minutes, although he said the examination did not require a lot of time. At the time, witness thought, from his general appearance, that plaintiff was suffering from the effects of a drinking bout. Witness admitted he had shut him off compensation because he thought he would be better off working than knocking about drinking. Witness felt sure that if he had resumed work then, he would be back in full work now, although he was not completely recovered then. To His Honor: He dissociated the prostrate condition entirely from plaintiff’s disability. Mr. Taylor said that he had obtained a report from Dr. Cotter, of Christchurch, but the defence declined to have it admitted as evidence. If the Court so desired, however, the case could be adjourned to Christchurch, to allow Dr. Cotter to give evidence. His Honor said that it was the opinion of the Court that it was for Mr. Taylor to say whether he wished to have Dr. Cotter’s evidence taken. Mr. Taylor: I would like to have that course taken. Mr. Hannan, in reply to His Honor, said that plaintiff had been notified that they did not propose to admit Dr. Cotter’s certificate and he could have had Dr. Cotter present. His Honor pointed out that the defence would have the right to call evidence in Christchurch, and even to recall Dr. Will, if it was desired. The case would, therefore, bo adjourned to Christchurch. The luncheon adjournment was then taken,