CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.

Colonist, Volume LIII, Issue 13054, 14 March 1911, Page 2

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.

SITTINGS OF THE ARBITRATION

COURT.

Tho sittings of the Arbitration Court to deal with claims for compensation set down for hearing commenced yesterday morning before his Honour Mr Justice Sim and Messrs W. Soott (oniployers' representative), and J. A. McCullough (employees' representative), assessors.

TWO CLAIMS SETTLED

In the case of Benjamin Wilkinson v. Waimea County Council, a claim for £200 compensation for injury received, Mr Moore, for claimant, intimated that a settlement had been arrived at, defendants agreeing to pay £125, which amount covered costs. Mr Hayes, for defendant, consented, and judgment was entered up accordingly.

The cas<* of Taaro Hiparaiti (Mr Maginnity) v; Lewis Stewart (Mr Harley), a claim for £400 compensation for the death of the son of claimant while in the employ of defendant, Mi Maginnity, for claimant, intimated that a settlement had bean arrived at, and the claim was struck out.

CLAIM AGAINST THE UNION

STEAMSHIP COMPANY

The claim of Edward Henry Coilins, wharf labourer, against the Union Steamship Company for £150 compensation for injury while employed on the steamer Mapourika was then proceeded with. Mr C. R. Fell appeared for claimant, and Mr Maginnity for defendant.

Evidence for claimant was taken -ac follows:—

Dr. F. A. Bi'tt stated that lie attended claimant from June 14th last year for fracture and dislocation of the right elbow. For some months claimant was under treatment. The condition of tho arm was gradually improving. In September last claimant could not extend-the arm fully, and he suffered a good deal of pain, ' At that time he was not fit for heavy work. At the present time ha could move his arm freely, except in the direction of extension, with a certain amount of limitation, but the movement, was still painful. In view of claimant's na,c (63 yaars) he thought it unlikely that he would ever be lit for such heavy work as wharf lumping again. By Mr Maginnity: In September last he advised claimant more than once to take up light work, as it was essential that he should exercise hip

arm. At then present time claimant's arm was not worth half it was before tho accident. Claimant could be employed in throwng slings from the deck of a steamer on to tho wharf ; he would consider that light work. If claimant had commenced light work in Septembar last ho would have expected to have found his arm stronger at the present time.

Dr. W. D. Stoncy Johnston stated that the power of claimant's arm was below normal, but it was fit for light work. Claimant up to tho present time could not have done hravy work. By Mr Maginnity: A year should elapse-, in his opinion, before an arm injured like claimant's could be used for heavy work. Claimant must have exercised his arm or it would not have basn as well as it wns.

Claimant in his evidence stated that from the time of the accident to September last ho was paid half pay by the defendants. He had done light work at home, such as chopping up bluo gums, and had exercised with "fish plates" as dumb-bells, in accordance with the doctor's instructions. His arm was stll.weak. He had made application for work to the Union Company, tho Railway Department, the City Council, and several private people, but without success, no light work being available. He had been offered a job by the Union Company, but Mr Price (the manager of the Union Steamship Company) had asked him if ho could do light work, am] claimant asked him what sort of light work he had got. Mr Price did not reply, and ho (claimant) said the only light work was "hatch work," mid he could .not do it. He was not offered any other work by Mr Price.

By Mr Maginnity: He did not remember Mr Price mentioning to him that there were three branches of light work he could do. He took his arm out of thai sling weeks before the payments by the defendant company ceased. He denied most emphatically that ho refused to take work from the Union Company, and that he said he was going to make thr, company pay. Daniel Bonner, master mariner, stated that hatch work was always given to the smartest man on the ship. It required a strong man to do the work.

This was claimant's case

Mr Magi.nnit.y briefly opened the casn for defendants. Ho contended that claimant had failed to show that ho had complied with the requirement!; of his medical adviser. An offer was mado by tho defendants of £20, which lie considered was a generous one. He called evidence as follows:—

Dr. S. A. Gibhs stated that he saw claimant on Bth August last year, and there was a wasting of the muscles of tho arm and somo stiffness in..thr« elbow joint. Ho then advised claimant to start light work in about a week. He saw claimant again on September 23rd, and he told him (witness) that he had .not done any light work, hut the condition of his arm had much improved. Tho muscles had also developed slightly, and he was of opinion that if the arm had been exerciser] the muscles would have been much more improved. On March Bth he csw claimant again, whan the movements of the arm to all intents and purposes were normal. There were some anatomical alterations in the parts of j

the elbow which would be permanent, but this should not affect claimant appreciably. Ho wns under the impression that if claimant did a week's work, tho muscles of his arm would lie as good as ever: From the nature of the injury claimant had made a particularly good recovery. By Mr Fall: Claimant would havo no difficulty in lifting kerosene cases about.

Dr. Mackay considered that there had boon a perfect functional recovery of claimant's arm. There was a certain amount of flabbiness of tha muscles, due to insufficient work. Jour months would bo ample time for a complete recovery from an injury liko claimant's.

By his Honour: In his opinion claimant should have bee« able to commence light work about eight weeks after the accident.

By Mr Fell: Ho had had cases of recovory under four months. William H. Price, local manager of tha Union Steam Ship Company stated that in August or September last Dr. Bott told him that claimant could do light work. Claimant stated that he could not do the light work described, but, after some demur, he consented to being examined by tho company's doctor (Dr. Gibbs). 'As a result claimant was offered "hatch work," but he. replied that he did not care to go aboard the ship unless ho could do the same work as the others did Ho made claimant the offer at least three times, but it was declined. He was to be paid the same wa^es as tha other men. He (witness) had had practical experience of hatch work, and knew what was required. In August last he suggested that claimant should accept a lump sum, but ho demurred, and witness said ho ought to get six months wages. Claimant refused to accept £20, and said lie had been injured by the company and intended to make them pay. (A letter written by claimant offering to accept £/8 without prejudico was put in ) .By Mr Fell: When offered tho 'hatch work" claimant said he was .not able to do it. He was also offered winch work and yard-arm work. Re-examined: Claimant took his chance with the other lumpers ; ho was not regularly employed by the com- • Pany, .

Mr Fell submitted that Dr. Bett's evidence was more valuable than tho other medical opinions, as he attended the case. There was a conflict of evidence as to tho work offered to claimant, but if he had accepted "hatch work" he might have been discharged and left in a disabled condition. 'c x l pert evidence showed that "hatch work" was hard work. He contended that it was extremely difficult for a wharf labourer to obtain light work. Claimant had mxercispd the arm and exercised it well, and he submitted that ho was entitled to compensation. After, a few minutes deliberation his Honour said that the Court h;ul decided to allow claimant compensation thirty weeks from September Bth at 30s per week. £45, with £5 5s costs and witnesses' expenses. This concluded the business.