ACCIDENT ON WHARF

Taranaki Daily News, 22 August 1930, Page 13

ACCIDENT ON WHARF

neurasthenia patient COMPENSATION TO WATERS IDER. ARBITRATION COURT SITTING. Compensation was claimed in the Arbitration Ctourt at New Plymouth yesterday by Jehoida Williams, a waterside worker, from the Shaw, Savill and Albion Shipping Company, for injuries received in accidents while unloading one of the company’s ships. Mr, Justice Frazer presided and associated with him were Messrs. W. Cecil Prime and L. M. Monteith. The Court allowed compensation to the date of the hearing and for a further six months at the rate of £3 '-s 3d a weeks. Costs amountg to £lO 10s, with expenses of medical witnesses £2 2s, were allowed plaintiff. Mr. P. J. .O’Regan appeared for Wil•liams and Mi\ If. F. O’Leary for the ‘ Shaw, Savill..and Albion Company. Plaintiff claimed (I) that when the accident occurred Tib - was employed by the company;'(2) : that on the day stated he was assisting to load the company’s steamship' Mahia, then ’moor.ed in the port, with meat and while, so employed was injured; (3) that on that day he was one of a gang employed at. No. 2 'hatch and. in the course- of his employment ..he fell from a. ’.staging or walking boards a height of about* eight feet, in consequence whereof he received injuries as the result of which he had been, totally disabled from working. The defence claimed that Williams’ average weekly earnings calculated. in accordance with the provisions of- the Workers’ Compensation Act, were not less than £5 17s 4d and that compensation at the rate of £3 18s 3d per week' was paid by the company until .-Fobru-' ary 15; 1930. Williams had been unable to agree on a settlement of hjs ; claim - with the company. Plaintiff claimed a weekly .payment of £3 ISs 3d as from February 15, 1930, until the hearing of the action, such further compensation in lump , sum as might be shown to be reasonable, £1 medical expenses, the costs of the'.action and. other relief which, might, seem.

just. The company admitted that Williams had been injured in its employment but denied that as a result injuries were received which had since totally disabled the "'plaintiff from working. The company admitted his weekly earnings were £5 17s 4d and admitted having paid compensation , till February. The company held that on February 15, the last date on 'which Williams was paid compensation, he had recovered from the' effects/ of the accident. If at that date.and subsequently he was under disability the company held that the dis- ?' ability was due to-an-accident which had occurcd to him some time previously. * Mr. .O’Leary stated that Williams had a previous accident in 1922 when 1 employed by a foundry firm. He had received a lump sum in compensation by settlement under ’ a .claim of disability and had .subsequently recovered to do heavy., work on. the. wharf.. There was no reason to suppose he would not do 1

so again. Dr. P. Cousin Davie,-who had examined Williams last March, said he had found the man suffering from pain in the spine and that his movements were impaired. The man was in a worried condition. An X-ray examination disclosed osteo arthritis . or bony outgrowths on the spine. These had been broken in places, suggesting damage from injury. The man would not recover from his. neurasthenia for another six months. Hewould never recover sufficiently to do heavy work on the wharf but would be able to return to ordinary wharf work. Dr. H. P. Gray, who had attended Williams at the moment of and since the accident, said ■. that at the present time he had a general tenderness in tlie region of the back and restricted movements of the limbs. He agreed that Wil-.-liams was suffering from traumatic neurasthenia.

Dr. Ernest W. Giesen, Wellington, who had examined Williams in Wellington, stated' that there was no evidence to show that his spine had been injured by /the fall. The osteo arthritis was common to men working on the wharf, over 60 per cent, of them being victims. The X-ray photographs showed no sign of any aggravation of the osteo arthritis. .was suffering from neurasthenia and probably would not recover for four months.

The medical evidence, said His Honour, indicated that the main complaint traumatic neurasthenia. It was a 'distressing complaint but fortunately a curable complaint, and one which was aggravated in a man waiting for litigation. Once the litigation was over it tended to disappear. The outside limit given for its disappearance by the medical evidence was six months. The medical witness for the plaintiff held that some aggravation was caused by the accident to the arthritic condition. ' On the other hand -the reports of the .. X-ray experts both in Wellington and Hew Plymouth gave no indication of , any change- caused in the arthritic ; con.-:, ’’ dition by the second accident. The Court must treat the complaint purely as neurasthenia and had no reason to think that it Would be long before Wil- ,, ]?{tms was back ht work. The estimates given for 'this period by the medical . evidence varied from three to six months and the Court thought it wise to allow ' the full six - months. The Court might .'fleein generous but it realised Williams muni be put in the frame of mind to j make him fit again.