WORKER'S CLAIM.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 644, 23 December 1932, Page 4

WORKER'S CLAIM.

Action for Compensation Fails. INJURY TO HEART. Whether a worker had recovered from a strain he suffered before becoming totally incapacitated was the subject at issue in a compensation claim, which was heard in the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon. The plaintiff in the action was William Henry Merritt, a brick and tile layer, of Cashel Street. Lin wood, and the defendant Briscoe and Company, Limited, hardware merchants, of Christchurch. Mr Dacre represented plaintiff and Mr Lascelles appeared for the defendant company. The statement of claim set out that on December 17, 1931, the plaintiff was lifting a tile and concrete slab for a fireplace being built by the defendant at premises in Durham Street, Christchurch, when he ruptured some muscle fibres in the region of his left breast, and strained and permanently affected and weakened his heart. It was submitted that the plaintiff was totally incapacitated from the date of the accident down till March 7, 1932. His average weekly earnings were £5 8s a week. It was admitted that the defendant, from December 7, 1931, to March, 1932, paid plaintiff the sum of £4O 16s by way of compensation, and £1 medical expenses. Plaintiff returned to work on March 7, 1932, but on April 29, 1932, he found that he could no longer perform the light work allotted to him. He accordingly discontinued work, and was now totally incapacitated. The defendant had paid a further sum of £l4 8s by way of compensation, but plaintiff sought such fuither relief as the Court deemed him entitled to. The defence was that such payments as had been made to plaintiff were made in respect of an accident in which the plaintiff, who was already suffering from disease of the heart, injured some pectoral muscles. By reason of such injury he was incapacitated for the periods in respect of which payment had been made, and he had, therefore, been paid all the compensation to which he was legally entitled. Dr W. Bates said that when he examined plaintiff in the first instance he had noticed no heart trouble. At a later examination he had noti?ad that Merritt’s heart was enlarged. Evidence was also given by Dr R H. Baxter. Mr Lascelles asked if in view of the medical evidence it would be necessary for evidence to be called for the defence, or whether it was not clear that there was no direct evidence to show that the heart pain was a result of the strain. “ There is no need to call the defence in this case,” said his Honor Mr Justice Frazer. “ There is nothing to establish connection between the physical strain, and anything that affected the heart. Judgment, therefore, is for the defendant.”