WIDOW NONSUITED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18627, 24 July 1930, Page 13

WIDOW NONSUITED

UNUSUAL COMPENSATION CLAIM. CANCER INVOLVED. By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND, July 23. An allegation that cancer, which caused her husband’s death was brought about by an injury caused to his hand, when he struck a cow. was the basis of a compensation claim by Frances Jeffs, in the Arbitration Court. Plaintiff, who was the widow of William Henry Jeffs, a farm labourer, brought her claim against Williams Thomas, a retired farmer, of Mount Albert. Plaintiff was nonsuited. The claim showed that Jeffs had been employed on defendant’s farm at Maungaturoto. On November. 1928, while driving cows to the bails, he struck one of them lightly with his open hand. The end of his ring finger came against the bone of the cow, with the result that the metacarpal bone of the hand was injured. In October last he developed cancer, and continued to suffer from it until he died on June sth. The widow claimed that death was due to cancer arising from injury to his hand.

The defence was that if Jeffs did develop cancer it was not due to any accident that occurred during his employment by Thomas.

Evidence that there was no evidence of cancer found in tissue of Jeffs’ hand in April, 1929, was given by Dr. V. H. Usher. In October, however, a section of a growth removed from his hand showed the presence of the disease, secondary growth of which extended to the spine. Radium treatment was given, and although the condition of the hand improved, death supervened. Kenneth Mackenzie gave evidence that when he saw Jeffs eleven months after the accident, he had true bone sarcoma.

Dr. W. Gilmour, pathologist at Auckland Hospital, said it was possible for osteorgenic sarcoma to arise quite unknown to a patient. Jeffs’ own account of the occurrence w*as consistent with a light blow that found out a previously existing sarcoma. Witness thought the alternative of pre-existing sarcoma was more likely. In granting a nonsuit, Mr Justice Frazer said the degree of knowledge the medical profession had so far attained about cancer was very indefinite, and very largely speculative. Consideration of any case in which cancer was involved had to be approached with a considerable amount of reserve. Medical evidence for the plaintiff fell far short of the degree of proof required by the Court. The Court could not conjecture, but must confine itself to drawing legitimate inferences from proved or admitted facts.