NURSE’S CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 21 September 1932, Page 6

NURSE’S CLAIM

FOR HEART INJURY From Scarlet Fever (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, Sept. 20. The Court of Appeal is hearing a case stated for its opinion by the Court of Arbitration, pursuant to Section 105 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925. Plaintiff is Ena May Storey, nurse, formerly of Wellington, but now of Scotland. Defendant is the Wellington Hospital Board. From November, 1929, plaintiff was employed as a probationer nurse at the Wellington Hospital. On May 19. 1930, she commenced duty in the fever hospital, and, contracting scarlet fever, was put in the fever ward on June 7. She remained in the [hospital until August 1, then after two weeks’ leave reported back for duties. She was told her heart was affected as the result of the scarlet fever, and she was not fit for the work. She then went into a convalescent home, ami at the end of two months was told by Dr. Ewen, Medical Superintendent of the Wellington Hospital, that she could not lesume training as a nurse, or do any strenuous work for a period of two or three years. Plaintiff’s salary was paid to September 4, 1930, and she received free lodgings in the convalescent home until October 28. In December. J 930. a writ was issued on Storey’s behalf, claiming £l2/15/- compensation, and a further sum for her partial incapacity and loss of earning power.

The defendant Board denied liability, and the question now raised for the answer of the Court of Appeal, is whether plaintiff, contracting scarlet fever and heart injury consequent thereon, suffered injury by an accident arising out of, and in the course of her employment. Opening the case, counsel for plaintiff said the basis of claim was compensation for the heart injury. But for that injury, the claim would never have been brought. The question to be decided by the Court was whether the contracting of scarlet fever, by a nurse in a hospital, was injury by accident, arising out of and in course of employment. It was contended by him that infection by germ was an “accident” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and if it could be established the germ invaded her system during her employment, plaintiff was entitled to succeed. Proof of the exact time of infection was unnecessary, and it was sufficient to establish that reasonable assumption was that that the infection took place during her working hours. That was the only assumption open on the present case. Defence Argument USED TO PROVE ACCIDENT WELLINGTON, September 20. 1 At. the Appeal Court in the cas Storey v. Wellington Hospital Board, counsel for the defendant Board admitted that the disease had been contracted during the plaintiff’s employment, but. submitted that that facwas not sufficient to enable the plaintiff to succeed, but. that it was necessary for her to establish that, surrounding the infection, ther e were some ac e'idental features The Nurse was aware that germs were present in large numbers in the hospital ward, and on going in there, without any accidental happening, she became infected. It was only by proving an accident that she had the cause of action, and that accident, or any accidental happening had not been established. Il' the Court found plaintiff was entitled to a, decision it could not be limited to scarlet fever, but would embrace every infectious disease, and would be of far-reaching consequences. The Court 'reserved its decision.