COMPENSATION CLAIM

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 August 1939, Page 2

COMPENSATION CLAIM

MINER’® CASE SUCCEEDS. At the sitting of the Arbitration Court in Greymouth, to-day, before Mr. Justice Callan, with Mr. W. Cecil Primo as employers’ representative, and Mr. A. L. Monteith as employees representative, Charles McGregor, of Dunollie, miner, brought a compensation 7 claim against Ronald McFaggai., James Wilson, Frederick Bansgrovo. John Allen, Robert Hambley, Robert Wright and George Wright, all of Runanga, co-operative coal miners, trading as the Moody Creek Co-operative Party. Mr. W. Douglas Taylor appeared for plaintiff and Mr. J. W. Hannan for defendants. After hearing the evidence oi. plaintiff and two doctors, the Court decided that compensation at the rate of £4/3/- a week, which had been paid plaintiff until three weeks ago, should be continued, and the Court expressed the opinion that, in the meantime, plaintiff should undergo a course of treatment recommended by the medical witnesses. Mr. Taylor said that on October 4, 1937, plaintiff was employed by the defendants, and on that day he had the misfortune to get between a truck of coal and the roof of the mine. As a result, he suffered head, back and chest injuries. Defendants had paid plaintiff compensation at the rate of £4/3/- a week from the date of the accident until three weeks ago. Defendants suggested that plaintiff was now suffering only from neurasthenia, but plaintiff’s case was that, in addition to neurasthenia there was also trouble with the third intercostal nerve. His Honor: Where do we keep that nerve? 1

Mr. Taylor said that this nerve ran from the middle of the back, about the shoulder blades, to the middle of the chest. Plaintiff contended, that the nerve had been injured in the accident. Plaintiff did not complain of the compensation that had been paid him, but it was a question of the future. An operation might be necessary, and if the Court considered it

"was, he understood defendants were prepared to pay for it. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that, after the accident, he was a patient at the Greymouth hospital for several months. Since then, he had had a pain starting at. the shoulder blade and travelling round to the chest. He had first noticed the pain early in December, 1937, but at first he did not connect it with the injuries he had received. The pain was very severe at times, and made it impossible for him to' work.

To Mr. Hannan: Tic had attempted to work about his own home and section. He had not worked elsewhere. He had tried to work, hut had had to give up. PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION. Dr. N. F. Greenslade, resident surgeon at the Greymouth Hospital, said he first saw plaintiff towards the end of June last. Plaintiff told him that since the accident he had suffered from severe pains on the right side of the chest. The pain started near the spine. The pain came on on any severe exertion, also when he took a deep breath. On examination, witness found McGregor tender over the third intercostal space at the back and front. The situation of the pain and tenderness led him to- believe that the third intercostal nerve was being irritated in some way and that any move aggravated the irritation. He ascribed this condition to the accident. In order to test this opinion, he made an injection into the nerve, and for two days after plaintiff was greatly improved. Then the pain returned. This was suggestive, but not conclusive, because the relief from pain was not complete. A fortnight ago, witness and Dr. Moore injected plaintiff’s second, third and fourth costal nerves, using more of the saline injection. The result was that plaintiff was completely free of pain after an hour and a half. Three days later, he was still free from pain, but 10 days after the injection he reported that the pain had returned. During these 10 days, plaintiff had been almost completely free of pain for the first time since the accident. This freedom from pain proved io witness that the nerve or nerves which were injected were causing I lie pain. X-ray photographs were taken with the object of mapping out the course of the pain in relation to the position of the nerve. He was satisfied, from the tests that had been carried out, that the pain was genuine; He considered the pain sufficient to prevent plaintiff from working. If injections did not cure the trouble, then the nerve would have to be cut. The effect of cutting the nerve would be nil on plaintiff’s working capacity. If an operation were performed, it would be about three months before plaintiff would be able to resume work. To Mr. Hannan: The fractures sustained in the accident were well healed, and the sole remaining disability was the damage to the intercostal nerve. He agreed that plaintiff was suffering from a degree of neurasthenia, but this was greater than to be expected In a man who had suffered a disabling pain for as long as plaintiff had. He thought that, if an operation were performed, plaintiff would be fit to work again. His Honor: Is this operation a well recognised operation ? —Yes. Is the operation a major or minor operation?—l would not call it a major operation. Witness went on to describe how the operation would be performed. Would you perform the operation yourself?—l think Dr. Moore and I might perform the operation together. The operation is not so big that plaintiff would have to bo sent away. There are no special risks in the operation ?—No. Dr. J. F. Moore said ho agreed with tlm evidence of Dr. Greenslade. Tile chief object of their examination and tests was to- prove that plaintiff’s condition was not purely neurasthenic, hut was partly organic. lie was satisfied that, even if there was a measure of neurasthenia present, the pain plaintiff complained of was real. He thought it might be advisable to try another injection before operating. If the injection was not sitccessl’ul. tin operation would give plaintiff permanent relief. The opera’tion would he a straight forward procedure. Plaintiff impressed him as being in a state of anxiety rather than neurasthenia. Tim diagnosis of neurasthenia as the sole basis of the pain was incorrect. To Mr. Hannan: Ho mH truly disagreed with the statement that Ihe occurrence and distribution oi the pain was not due to the intercostal nerve. He did not agree that exercise would cure the condition. On the contrary. lit' was of opinion that exer-

cise would aggravate the trouble. Pie agreed that some form of electrical treatment should be tried before an operation, but he was under the impression that such treatment had been tried. Mr. Taylor said plaintiff had had no electrical treatment. To Mr. Prime: He agreed that it would be advisable to try another injectibn. He also agreed that a possible element in the case was anxiety, because of plaintiff’s compensation claim. He would try first an injection, then electrical treatment, and finally an operation, if the other two failed.

Mr. Hannan said that he did not propose to call any evidence. His instructions.were to leave the matter to the Court., after the- Court had heard Lite evidence of Drs. Greenslade and M oore.

Recalled by his Honor, Dr. Greenslade said he agreed it would be a good thing to try electrical treatment. To a suggestion of Mr. Prime, that, if the Court made a final settlement that day, this would help to clear up plaintiff’s neurasthenic condition, Mr. Taylor submitted that all the Court should do at present was to make an order for continuation of the payment of compensation until the same was ended, diminished or redeemed, otherwise, if anything happened to plaintiff under the operation, his dependents would be debarred from making any further claim. COURT’S DECISION. After a short retirement, the Court delivered the following decision: We are satisfied to accept the evidence of Drs. Greenslade and Moore, and, in accordance with this, we are of opinion that the course that should be followed is (his. that first another saline injection should be tried. If that is not successful, the patient should be dealt with by electrical treatment, and, it’ neither of these methods effect a cure, then an operation should be performed. We think that there is every reason to hope that, the cure of the complaint will be effected by one or other of the three methods, and we think it is reasonable that plaintiff should submit himself to these methods of treatment, though we have heard nothing to suggest that he would refuse to do so. In the meantime, plaintiff is entitled to compensation at the rate of £4/3/- a week from the date up to which compensation has been paid. If the parties, with the help of (heir legal advisers, Me not able to determine when the payment of compensation should cease, then application can be made to a. magistrate, under the 1938 Statute. Tile views of the Court on the medical side, now expressed, will be available for the parties and the S.M.. if it is necessary to invoke the aid of the S.M. to bring the legal liability to an end. Plaintiff was awarded £B/8/- costs, and £2/2/- for each of the medical witnesses. CASE STRUCK OUT. The compensation case, Thomas Wilson, of Christchurch, labourer v. V. Franovitch, of Christchurch, and R. Fenwell, of Hokitika, contractors, was struck out. to-day. When the case was called earlier in the session, Mr. E. B. E. Taylor, instructed by a firm of Chiistchnrch solicitors, said the hearing could not he proceeded with because contact had been lost, with plaintiff, who was somewhere in the North island. The Court directed that the case should be stood down to the last day of the session, but, when it was (•ailed to-day. Mr. Taylor said that efforts to establish commupieat ion with plaintiff had failed. Mr. F. A. Kitchingham, instructed by ?v!(. M. B. James (Hokitika), applied for judgment for plaintiff with costs. His Honor: Should the Court not merely strike out. the ease? Mr. Kitchingham: I think', in all the cirt (imstances, I should ask for judgment. Then Hie matter will be finally settled. The case is of importance to defendants, because of the balance of certain contract moneys held by the I’ublic. Works Department, pending a settlenient of (he case.

His Honor said (hat it. was true that, if tin.- Gouri struck out the. case, plaintiff could start fresh proceeding?, but, as the accident, happened on January 25. 1938. it looked, on the face of it, as if (lie limitation section would be an inrujcrali’c Imi-lb- io su<-h proceed-in-.'s. H< did mH titink (lie I’ublic Works Department would continue to withhold tin money in question if the c;"ii! were sUm-k () ul. lie thought. that .-■ll dcfoiidtinis were entitled to was ilwt. lite case should be struck out. am! litis, accordingly, would lie the decision of lite Court.