COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19143, 8 October 1925, Page 15

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

LABOURER'S HEART TROUBLE. CONFLICT AS TO CAUSE. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. The question whether a heart strain, from which a man was admittedly suffering, had been caused by an accident at work or was the result of general debility, due to a prolonged period of over-work, was at issue in a c- mpensation claim made in the Arbitration Court yesterday by Lionel Osborne, labourer, Ederidale (Mr. Terry), against Bray and Company, contractors, Onehunga (Mr. Richmond). Plaintiff alleged that while working for defendants at Remuera he sustained an injury that' induced heart trouble. He had been totally disabled. Defendants refused to recognise any responsibility, but paid plaintiff £iß 16s as an ex gratia allowance. Plaintiff claimed a weekly payment of £3 2s 8d from the date of the accident. The defence was a general denial of liability. It was contended that plaintiff's incapacity, if any, was due to causes other than alleged in the claim. Plaintiff said he was employed working a two-horse scoop for defendants on February 16. He suddenly felt dizzy arid had to cease work. Next day he had the same experience after working for half an hour. The foreman told him to see a doctor. Hs did so and remained away from work for six weeks. He then returned and was given a lighter job, but after a few days was again compelled to cease work. He admitted he had previously bad a nervous breakdown. Evidence was given by Dr. D. N. W. Murray that plaintiff interviewed him in April. Witness examined him and found his heart dilated. He formed the opinion that plaintiff was suffering from heart strain. He examined him again in July, when he was somewhat improved. At the first interview witness considered plaintiff would be unfit for work for six months. In September he was better and should be fit for work again in about three months. In his opinion, the illness was caused by a strain sustained on the day plaintiff first became ill when working the scoop, Dr. A. McGregor Grant gave similar evidence. Evidence for the defence was given by Dr. W. J. Johnson, who examined plaintiff on March 3. He formed the opinion that plaintiff was suffering from illness through over-wnrk. He did not consider plaintiff's heart condition had been caused by any sudden strain. If it had been so caused he would not have shown such rapid improvement. Dr. E. B. Gunson, who examined plaintiff on March 10, gave evidence similar to that of Dr. J' hnson. He f was of opinion that plaintiff was constitutionally unfit for the hard work he had been undertaking. This had caused general debility, which culminstod in the illness from which he was suffering. In delivering judgment, Mr, Justice Frazer said the convict of evidence in the case was one that frequently occurred in heart cases. It seemed clear that for a number of years plaintiff had undertaken work beyond his capacity. The Court, in the circumstances, drew the inference that the heart had not been strained in the 'etral sense, but had exhausted its reserveJudgment must therefore be for defendant. MAF'S THUMB CRUSHED. FREEZING WORKS ACCIDENT. A claim for compensation arising from an accident at the W r estfie!d Freezing Company's works on February 10 was brought by Stephen Walter Carter., labourer (Mr. Tnder), of Panmure, against the West field Freezing Company. Limited (Mr. Richmond). Plaintiff said he had his thumb crushed in a sausage-skin machine at the works. He was treated by Dr. Ross, of Otahuhu, and on April 14 received a certificate from the doctor to the effect that the thumb was as well as it was likely to be. Plaintiff received £3 15s » week compensation up to May 25. Early in June the company declined to pay him anything further. He was now un'&He to fallow his ordinarv occupation. Cross-examined, plaintiff admitted that he had not endeavoured to obtain work siri-~e the accident. Evidence was giver) by Dr. A. McGregor Grant fhat the injury plaintiff hfd sustained rendered the thumb joint stiff. The stiffness would be permanent and would represent a 50 per cent, loss of the joint. Witness considered the stiffness was due to septic arthritis supervening on the original iniurv. Wi'liam Hed' in gave evidence that plaintiff was a "champion" worker in the line in which he was emploved when the accident occurred. Re could earn an average of £7 a week. Plaintiff could not carry out the work with a stiff thumb, Similar evidence was given by Henry Neal, casing worker. Dr. E. II B. Milsom said there was a permanent stiffness in the plaintiff's thnmh Joint. If the t®""'mb had been ererr-iswd to a greater extent he tho"gbt the stiffness would be copsiderablv less. It was onite possible that plaintiff, bv jiersevpranre, wonld be able to adapt himself and earn? out his usual work. Dr. A. M. Pnss gave evidppe? as to treating pVntjff Rv April 14 fbo thumb was. in witness' opinion, as well as it could be. Dur in" the period nlaiutiff "•as reee ; viug treatment wittier saw him on h"rsoV>af>k driving cattle. Witney Dr Mil«nm's onin'on rfjfM-dinfr tb» «xfent of incapacity caused b" arcidont Tn oivin" >nd«ment. Mr. Justice Fm?er said tho Court had decided to award on fh» of 7! ner ccr>t. as wcrgected bv Dr. Grant,. THt meant fnjl /v>ronpn«a+i<in at fbo rate of C.X t5« n ww'r i>n to Ma'* 99 and sf- amount on the basis of 5s 74 d per week for weeks.