WHEN DOCOTORS DIFFER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18576, 7 December 1923, Page 7

WHEN DOCOTORS DIFFER.

CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. FRACTURE OF THE SKtTLL. COURT AWARDS- ~ COMPENSATION. ; A conflict of medicaj testimony took place before the Arbitration Court; in Wellington in the.'case in which Alfred Frank Walter (Mr. P. J. O'Regan) proceeded for compensation against the Wellington Harbour Board (Mr. C. H. ; Treadwell). The claim arose out of an accident which occurred on January 23 last, concerning which all the facts were agreed to. The board admitted its liability, and was paying plaintiff at the rate of £2 12s 5a per week, but had advised him that a settlement of his claim by a lump sum was desirable. * To this claimant objected, demanding the continuance of the weekly payments during the period of his disability. " Evidence was given for claimant by Dr. James Bruce Baird, who said that Walter had been admitted to the hospital suffering from a fractured skull. He was discharged three weeks later, but had since been unable to do heavy work and suffered from headaches and disability to his eyes. He should have at least three months' complete rest. Similar evidence was given fc-y Dr. F. Bower bank, who, however, said that the roan should have twelve months' rest. For the defence, Dr. Gieson said that the man's condition was due chiefly to neurasthenia, and that the remains of his physical injury did not account for his condition. His Honour said that with all due respect to the doctors who 'ct»d been called, there was a good deal of discrepancy between the medical . evidence. Where medical men disagreed, it was rather hard for the court to come to a decision, but -where injuries to the head were concerned, it was usual to give the benefit of the doubt to the injured man. The court would therefore compromise, and award compensation as for six months, which amounted to £75, with costs, £6 6s.