Claim by Camp Cook

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 106, 7 May 1938, Page 8

Claim by Camp Cook

DOCTORS DIFFER AS TO CAUSE OF INFECTION IN DISPOSITION NOT DU E TO SCALDING SOUP In a lengthy' hearing before Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the Woodville Court yesterday, a camp cook, William Faulkener, of Woodville, sued John Gillon for £22 10s wages compensation. Faulkener, now an old age pensioner, for whom Mr. W. A. Lyons appeared, alleged that his arm had been scalded with pea soup w'hile he was cooking in the employ of defendant (Mr. J. Carruthers) and that the burn so inflicted had been made septic by the contacts with soda and other contacts necessitated by his work. He, furthermore, alleged that sandflies at the camp had contributed to the infection of his aim. He said ho consulted Dr. Mules, of Woodville, who gave him treatment. The irritation was so great under the bandages that they were taken off by plaintiff’s wife. On October 14, 1937, he consulted Dr. Dawson, of Pahiatua, who admitted him to hospital, where ho spent a fortnight. Plaintiff said that before going to Dr. Mules he had no skin disease nor complaint as to the condition of his work save the sandflies. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carruthers, witness admitted that he could not remember tho date when lie first consulted Dr. Mules. He could uot recall, either, how many times he had seen Dr. Mules, but recollected consulting him once, before he got scalded, about a bad back. He had mentioned the sandflies to the doctor and had also complained of them on the job. He had told Gillon at the camp that ho had received a slight burn, but had not complained of it to his assistant. Henrietta Faulkener corroborated her husband’s evidence with regard to the treatments given by the two but could not remember any specific date in connection with the case. {She w r as positive that the two doctors had been consulted about the same complaint. Henry Thomas Dawson, of Pahiatua, medical practitioner, told of his examination of plaintiff on {September 14 and described the complaint as a bad case of induced weeping eczema mainly on the left arm, although there were small spots on his other limbs. Witness said he accepted Faulkener’s explanation of his state as due to the burn and sandflies. Mr. Carruthers failed to shake witness’ conviction that an original open sore had become infected. The scalding related was quite compatible. William Wallace, of Wellington, district representative of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, described his hearing of Faulkener’s case together with a rumour that there was some difficulty over insurance at the camp, hence his investigation. He had, upon calling at the camp, heard Faulkener’s story and suggested consulting a solicitor. Witness had asked Gillon if tho burn had been reported and Gillon said he had been told of it casually by Faulkener, but did not regard it as a report. Mr. Carruthers then called Dr. Phillip Henry Mules, of Woodville, and witness told the Court that plaintiff had first consulted him about his arm on {September 10. There was a skin inflammation on plaintiff’s upper arm which was probably caused by some irritant, but there was no sign of a burn or any other wound. At some length he described the uncertain behaviour of some forms of eczema which seem to be subject to personal idiosyncracies. Dr. Mules was not sure whether September 10 was the day of his first or second consultation by plaintiff. In reply to Mr. Lyon he assured the Court that he had not seen plajntiff with regard to his back for two or three years. Summing! up, Mr. Lawry said that such, eczema was not classed as an industrial disease and, according to Dr. Mules’ evidence, the infection had started before the scalding of Faulkener’s arm amd the Act <s<ly provided for compensation where the Indisposition was attributable to a definite happening. Judgment was entered for defendant with costs. Witness’ expenses were allowed.