ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3829, 2 August 1927, Page 82

ARBITRATION COURT.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. Tim Arbitration Court sat in Dunedin on Wednesday. Present: Mr Justice Irazer (president), Mr W. Scott, and Mr A. L. Monteith. James Bristow, of Palmerston, flourmill hand, claimed compensation from Richard Jamieson, of Dunedin, flourmiller (carrying business under the name of Glenp&rk Flourmiliing Companv). alleged that on November 30, 1920, while employed at the defendant’s flourmill at Glenpark he met with personal injury—to wit, hernia—arising out of his employment through overstraining himself in the course of lifting bags of wheat and flour. As a result, he was incapacitated from work from December 4, 1926, until January 24, 1927, and from the latter date he had been partially incapacitated, and had been employed by the defendant at £4 a week. At the time of the accident he was earning £4 10s a week. From December 4, 1926, to January 8, 1927, the defendant paid to the plaintiff by way of compensation the sum of £2 10s per week. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant: (a) The sum of £5 15s 2d, being the balance of compensation under the Workers Compensation Act, due by the defendant to the plaintiff, for the period of total incapacity, and the sum of £1 medical expenses; (b) a weekly payment as from January 24, 1927, of 58“ per cent, of the difference between the plaintiff’s earnings for the time being in suitable employment and the sum of 10s. Mr W. G. Hay appeared,for the plaintiff; Mr Callan for the defendant.

Evidence was given by the plaint ff. Dr Howden, Isaac Day, and Harry Johnstone.

The defence consisted of a denial of the allegation that the plaintiff injured himself in the defendant’s employ. Defendant admitted that he had paid the plaintiff certain moneys, which were described as “on account of insurance company,” but that he did so on the representation of the plaintiff that he had met with an accident arising out of his employment, and was suffering from incapacity, a-iid that the circumstances were not then known to, and had not been investigated by, t-ho defendant or his insurers, and when the circumstances had been investigated liability was declined. Dr W. Marshall Macdonald said he had examined the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. It was his opinion that the man’s condition was the result of a slowly progressing hernia, which had showed itself at a certain time. A particular happening might lead to the discovery of hernia, though it was not the cause. The history of the case was consistent with an advanced stage of a diseased condition, which a strain would develop. It was a usual thing for persons to suddenly bring about a condition which they had never suspected before. In this case, a preexisting condition had probably been accentuated simultaneously with a strain at the man’s work. Learned counsel addressed the court. After a retirement of 15 minutes, the President said the court was unable to hold that the plaintiff had proved there was any particular strain to which the appearance of the hernia could be attributed. It was possible the lifting of sacks or the stepping off a pile of sacks might have something to do with it, but the court could not say that the injury was the result of the employment or whether it was coincident with it. Judgment- would therefore be for the defendant, with costs (£lO 10s).