WHEN DOCTORS DISAGREE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18567, 27 November 1923, Page 8

WHEN DOCTORS DISAGREE.

FATE OF A MAN'S TOE. QUESTION OF AMPUTATION. [by TELEGRAPH. CORRESPONDENT.] QKEYMOUTH. Monday. A somewhat interesting compensation case in which the fate of a man's toe hung in the balance came before the Arbitration : Court at its Greymouth sittings. A sawmiller, named Daniel Josephs, ,of Kokiri, proceeded against his former employers for compensation for an injury to his toe sustained as a result of the plaintiff striking it with an axe ' The facts were admitted, the only question in dispute being the effect of Ine injury on plaintiff's earning capacity and the assessment of <x>mpen sation. Counsel for defendants claimed that the plaintiff had been unreasonable and had heightened the effect of the in•jury by declining to undergo .an operation for. the removal of the toe, which was still causing him great pain. Counsel for plaintiff said that amputation was not necessary, but that the accident had reduced plaintiff's earning capacity by one half. ' "Dr. Conlon said he had examined plaintiff's foot and did not think an operation wa* advisable or necessary. Dr. Baild, orthopaedic : surgeon, ' ■' said that an amputation would relieve the pain and the ellcct would be to increase the earning capacity. . ,-V,'. • The Court entered ati interim judgment for plaintiff for compensation at ( the rate of £3 6s. a week from the date

of the accident, March 6, to November 10), when plaintiff, started w,'ork, and from then until December 24 55 per cent, of the difference between his present wage and his former wage. As the doctors disagreed as to whether the toe should be removed it' was left to the

plaintiff to decide the point after consulting his medical adviser. If it had to be removed he would automatically be entitled to full compensation for seven weeks. If he decided to retain the toe the amount of compensation would be decided by the Court.