WORKER WITHOUT USE OF HAND.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17698, 19 November 1925, Page 8

WORKER WITHOUT USE OF HAND.

GETS COMPENSATION FROM COAST COMPANY. A claim for compensation was heard at the Arbitration Court this morning when Andrew Jack, a sawmill hand, proceeded against the Kanieri-Hoki-tika Sawmilling Co.. Ltd. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Messrs H. Hunter (employees’ assessor) and Mr W. Scott (employers' assessor) . The statement of claim stated tha,t on February 9, 1924, plaintiff was lifting rails when his little finger and the palm of his hand were crushed, septicpoisoning eventuating. From that date until October 15, 1925, he had been permanently incapacitated, and was still permanently incapacitated. He hftd undergone four operations, and would possibly have to undergo further operations. The statement of defence consisted of a denial of the accident occurring while plaintiff was at work. It stated ♦ hat the compensation which had been

paid had been paid under a misapprehension. Mr Wilding, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that the accident occurred on February 9. 1924. when tfhe , plaintiff’s finger was severely jarred. ■ a whitlow resulting. lie was treated, and on August 5, 1924. Jack came to Christchurch and was under treatment for a year. It was found impossible to cure the hand. Ilis client claimed for a total and permanent loss of the use of the hand, and claimed that the elbow joint had been affected. The plaintiff, Andrew. Jack, said that while working as a sawmill hand on February 9. 1924, he was lifting tramlines. In the act of knocking the rails oft the sleepers, the hammer jarred the little finger. That evening the finger commenced to swell. He worked until the following Wednesday, when he had to knock off. Since then he had been under treatment in hospitals iri Christchurch, and on the West Coast. Dr J. L. Will said that Jack had been sent to the Christchurch Hospital for treatment in August, 1924. Witness had treated Jack for nearly a. year. but . the hand had failed to respond to treatment. For industrial purposes, the hand was useless. It would be very much better, from a labouring point of view, if plaintiff bafl his hand removed, and a hook fitted. It was practically certain that the hand would never improve. Ilis condition was equivalent to the total loss of the use of the hand. Mr M. Gresson. who appeared for the defence, said that there seemed to be no reason to doubt from the evidence that the plaintiff suffered the injuries while at work. Tt seemed that plaintin' was entitled to compensation. Dr H. T D. Acland said that he agreed with Dr Will’s evidence, except. that he thought that there was a possibility of improvement in the use of the hand. He was of opinion that Jack would develop the use of his left hand. From an industrial point of view, the witness thought that it would be better if the man had had his hand amputated, although he thought that it would better to wait for another year in order to see if there was any * improvement. His Honor said that there was verv httle in dispute. The hand was apparer.tlv permanently useless for industrial purposes. Even if the hand did 'improve slightly, it was counter-bal-anced by the injury to the elbow. The Court had decided to treat the case •s one of total loss of the hand. Compensation, amounting to 70 per cent, of the total, would be awarded, together with costs. Full compensation until August 31 would also be granted.