DELAY IN APPLICATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 74

DELAY IN APPLICATION.

nullifies compensation claim. CHRISTCHURCH, June 29. Failure to make a claim within the statutory period of six months prevented plaintiff from succeeding in a compensation case heard by the Arbitration Court to-day. David Pollock laid a claim for compensation against the Kaiapoi Woollen Company for the loss of the sight of one eye in 1922. Plaintiff had been employed bv the defendant company as departmental manager for nine years. Pollock stated that one day he had been shaking some opossum skins. Naphthalene was put into the skim. to keep out moths, and he got some of this in his eye. He attended a specialist, and later on. while lifting something off a shelf, he got more naphthalene in his eyes. He went to a specialist, and was advised to go to the defendant company, which paid his medical expenses, but later there appeared to be some rearrangement of staff, and another man was promoted over his head, and the company dismissed witness. He had lost the sight of his right eye. In replying to Mr Upham, counsel for defendants, Pollock denied that the doctor had said to him on the occasion of his last visit that the eye was covered with an ulcer and was scarred. The doctor had told him that his Eight might be restored. After hearing legal argument and evidence, hiß Honor said that the case illustrated the ' ’portance of '.he six months’ limit laid »’own by statute. The evidence was nearly all extremely hazy. Matters which were considered unimportant five or six years ago were liable to be very uncertain in the minds of witnesses to-day. Plaintiff admittedly had an inflammatory condition of the eye in 1915. This possible left a weakness. None of th" medical witnesses ~new or had even heard of an accident similar to that wh : ch had occurred to Pollock. It w&g clear that a shower of naphthalene in 1921 brought on an inflammatory condition through causing irritation, and there was eventually ulceration, ..hich encompassed the entire, ■‘r almost the itire, loss of the use of the eye. Planitiff’s evidence as to the state of his vision between 1922 and 1925 was not altogether clear or easy to follow, but the evidence o' Dr Wales made it clear that i May, 1922. the eye was industrially useless. Plaintiff so regarded it himself, as he never used it at work. It was doubtful whether it would be of any industrial use again. The law required an action of this nature to bo brought within six months, but the court endeavoured to be as lenient as possible in interpreting the provirion. An extreme time was alio /ed in the case r a man who had no real reason at the expiration of that period to believe that his injury would get worse. Pollock’s eye was blind in May, 1922, however, and he did not make any claim within a reasonable period. In fact, Ls did not take up the matter ns a compensation claim until his employment was terminated. Judgment would be given for the defendants.