OPERATION DIRECTED

Grey River Argus, 17 May 1938, Page 9

OPERATION DIRECTED

BY ARBITRATION COURT. COM PENS ATION CLAIMAN T’S CASE. Reserved judgment was delivered by His Honour, Mr Justice O’Regan, in the. Arbitration Court at Greymouth yesterday, in the compensation case, in which Charles Archibald Murray, winchdriver, of Berlins, pro- . ceeded against 11, Baigent and Sons. I Ltd., of Nelson, sawnu?£gys, claiming the maximum conpensauuii. He was injured whilst employed at the defendant company’s sawmill in the Buller Gorge on August. 4, 1936, in consequence thereof, he suffered a compound fracture of the right leg , below the knee. He was still totally ! disabled inasmuch as he could walk , only b.y the use of sticks. I In the course of a lengthy judg- ■ ment, it was pointed out that five doctors had advised the amputation of plaintiff’s leg, while Dr. Hudson of Nelson, though he admitted that an operation might improve the leg, (nought it inadvisable. There was no question of compelling the plaintiff to submit to an operation, but. the Court , had jurisdiction to refuse compensation if it was satisfied that the plaintin’ should undergo an operation, stated (he judgment, and the question was whether, tinder the circumstances recapitulated, the plaint ill’s refusal was reasonable. It was to be noted that Ur. Hudson did not oppose tho suggested operation on the ground] (tun it involved risk of the plaintiff’s life. He (the doctor) stated that it I involved risk t 0 the limb, but the ob- ' vious commentary was that the limb could not well be in a condition much worse than it was at present. There was no evidence that Dr. Hudson was the plaintiff’s regular medical adviser, but even if he were, there was an overwhelming body of professional opinion against his view. The Court had made its own inquiries, and was satisfied that even supposing that the patches of rarified bone did indicate residual sepsis—and the weight of] evidence was decidedly against such a view—the operation could be done] without touching these. The Court could not entertain plaintiff’s councelt’s submission that plaintiff, having I once made up his mind, was entitled to shut liis ears to any subsequent advice, and the Court had no hesitation in holding that, plaintiff should undergo an operation. The Court desired, as far as possible, however, to protect him against his own indiscretion, and so the Court did not find as a fact that his continued incapacity was due to any unreasonable conduct on his part. The Court would adjourn the case for three months, and it would order that the arrears of weekly compensation be paid to date, and provided the plaintiff agreed in the meantime to undergo the operation, continued until the further order of the Court. On the expiration of the period named, the case would be reviewed. In the meantime, the question of costs must remain in obeyance.

Mr W. Douglas Taylor appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. W. Hannan for the defendant company.