CLAIM FAILS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21190, 10 November 1938, Page 4

CLAIM FAILS

Accident to Mill Worker Traumatic Neurasthenia Not Proved Humphrey Frederick Brosnahan, oi Ma Waro. proceeded against H. and C. Wood in the Timaru Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr H. Morgan. S.M.. on a claim for £B6 13 4 for compensation as a result of an accident which occurred at Albury on February 12. He was non-suited with costs. Mr A. D. Mcßae appeared for the plaintiff, defendants being represented by Mr L. M. Inglis. Mr Mcßae explained that plaintiff was a general labourer, and at the time was a mill worker employed by the defendants at Albury. On February 12 plaintiff strained his left side. It was submitted that he was now suffering from traumatic neurasthenia as a result of the accident. Mr Inglis said that the accident and liability were admitted. The sum of £3B '3/7 had been paid in compensation and £l/1/- in medical expenses. The whole question was what was the nature of his injury, if any. and was he entitled to additional compensation? Plaintiff in Box Plaintiff in evidence said he was engaged in carrying and bagging at the mill when he strained a side. He had tried to get back into work, but he had failed. As soon as he attempted to work pains returned, and he was forced to give up. He had tried several jobs, but he was much the same in health as the day the accident happened Replying to Mr Inglis witness said that the pain was apparent when he exerted himself. He had seen three doctors and a specialist, who said that there was nothing organically wrong with him. He had not gone to other doctors for their opinion, although at times he had agonising pains, as he did not think that anything more could be done for him. Since April, after the payment cf compensation ceased, he had earned about £22. The only work he had done on his father s farm was to mow the Ir.wn and dig the garden. He did about half an hour and was forced to knock off for a while. Mr Inglis: To have a smoke? —Yes. And morning tea? -Yes. It is a wonder you can take it with such an agonising pain.—A man must eat. otherwise he would not be here long. In answer tc Mr Mcßae witness said that he visited a Christchurch medical specialist at his own expense. Ability as Shearer Evidence as to Brosnahan s ability as a shearer before the accident was given by James H. Rapsey, of Ma Waro. In crutching woik this season Brosnahan lacked “ginger” and was complaining about pains over the heart. Witness was on his own for the last week as Brosnahan was not fit to carry on. The accident at the mill to Brosnahan was described by Cecil A. Guthrie, of Aubury. who said that Brosnahan was a good worker. Dr. M. S. Wells traced the history of Brosnahar 's case. He had found at one stage that Brosnahan was apparently a victim of a trick of his nervous system and advised him to go back to work. Plaintiff paid him subsequent visits, but he did not appear to him at any time to be consciously malingering. His motives throughout seemed honest. Witness thought that there was every reason to connect Brosnahan’s present neurasthenic condition with the accidert. In reply to Mr Inglis Dr. Wells said that he would not 'lke to draw a line between traumatic neurasthenia or anxiety neurosis in the case of plaintiff. Witness was not a psychiatrist. Onus on Plaintiff This onus of establishing traumatic neurasthenia rested on the plaintiff, said Mr Ingles, who submitted that it had not been established and the case must fail. He pointed »ut that during the period he was claiming for compensation plaintiff had earned £22/11/6 and that had not been taken into account ir. his claim. It was brought out in cross-examina ion. He asked that plaintiff be non-suited. Mr Mcßae pointed cut that he had obtained statement of Brosnahan’s earnings and there was no intention on his part not to disclose them. The Magistrate said that the basis cf the action was tt t plaintiff was suffering from trauma*L neurasthenia, but Dr Wells had stated that he could not draw a distinction as to whether it was traumatic neurasthenia or anxiety neurosis. On that ground defendants were entitled to a non-suit, with costs £5/7/-. The Magistrate also drew attention to the fact that plaintiff s earnings had not been taken intc consideration in the claim. In a case like that there was always the possibility oi malingerin being brought up and it was necessary for the plaintiff to come forward v ith all available information.