A WIDOW'S CLAIM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLV, Issue 10431, 8 November 1919, Page 7

A WIDOW'S CLAIM

ACCIDENT OR DISEASE? The Court of Arbitration has delivered'its reserved judgment in the case of Mary Donaldson, of Westport, against Griffiths Bros., of Birchfield, "Westport, flaxmillers. PJaintiff was the widow of William Donaldson, and sho claimed compensation on behalf oi herself and four young children in respect to the death of her husband, who died on January. 22nd last in the Wes'tport Hospital shortly after an operation, alleging that the death resulted from an accident sustained by while in the employment ot defendants oil August 20th, I9IS. The caso was heard at Westport on September 22nd,' and evidence was given showing that on the evening of' August 20th plaintiff had occasion tc go under the mill floor in order to adjust some belting, that he returned in a -few minutes apparently in pain, and complained to hia workmate, J. 31cHerron, that he had struck his head at the back of his ear on a bolt which projected from the floor. McHerron's evidence was to the effect- that • deceased became ill, and that work was knocked off. early in the evening in consequence. Deceased returned to his work on the following day, but still complained of the pain bohind the ear, and in consequence of bis representations the foreman himself cut the projecting part of the bolt off. Deceased consulted Dr Monson, of West:portr~Eome days later, who prescriben treatment. .- He continued to work, with an interval of three weeks, until the Christmas holidays, when ho again consulted Dr Monson, still complaining of the oar pain, and early in January the doctor ordered him into the hospital. An operation was performed immediately after bis admission, but deceased died on the 22nd. The medical evidence was to the effect that the deceased died from abscess of the brain an inflammation of the mastoid process, and that the condition was set up by the injury. Dr Giesen, on .behalf of tho defendants, however, jjavo it as his opinion that the condition could not have been set up by a blow unless the mastoid bono had been fractured, and his view, was that the cause of death was middle ear disease, which had extended, to the mastoid cavity. At the hearing the court was satisfied that the accident had in fact occurred, but in view of the conflicting mndical evidence took time "to consider its decision.

\ In the couxso* of the judgment the president of the court, Mr Stringer, reviewed the facts as proved by the evidence at the hearing, and stated that the problem raised by tiie conflicting evidence presented the greatest difficulty...., On. .the whole, however, having regard .to, tho fact that Dr Giosen's evidence, though given with force and clearness, was theoretical, Dr Monson, who had treated the deceased, was equally emphatic that the condition resulted from the blow, and the court felt justified in accepting his view. The court found, therefore, that there was a casual connection .between, „tjie accidental blow on tho head sustained in August and the condition which caused the death of deceases! in tho following January. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiff for £SOO compensation, £lB 14s funeral expenses, £ls 15s costs, with'-witnesses'-espensps and disbursements to be settled by the Clerk of Awards. Mr P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. C. Cottrell-for the defendants.