DOCTORS DIVIDED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20485, 11 December 1934, Page 13

DOCTORS DIVIDED.

Labourer Suffering from Obscure Disease. COMPENSATION CLAIM FAILS. A compensation claim, partly heard at Grey mouth on November 28 last, was continued before the Arbitration Court—Mr Justice Frazer (president). Mr A. L. Monteith (employees' representative) and Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative)—at Christchurch yesterday. The plaintiff in the action was Francis William Murphy, labourer, of Runanga, and the defendant the State Coal Mines Department Medical evidence only was given, to determine whether plaintiff was suffering from an osteo-genetic malignant tumour in his leg before the accident, or whether that state was induced by the accident. It was stated that the complaint, an obscure form of cancer, was extremely' rare, and medical opinion was divided as to its cause. For the p’aintiff it was submitted that while working at the State collieries at Runanga as a lamp cleaner and fan attendant on October 31, 1933, Murphy injured his left leg. but he continued working till March 2. 1934. He suffered muscular wasting of the left leg, and finally the limb was amputated at Lewisham Hospital. Christchurch. It was contended that the necessity for amputation was due to the injury by accident. The Department of State Coal Mines denied liability to pay compensation, and therefore plaintiff, whose average weekly earnings had been not less than £4 6s Bd. claimed a weekly payment of £2 17s lOd as from the date of the accident until the hearing of his claim: a weekly payment of £2 3s 4*d for the remainder of the period of liability; costs of the action and such further relief as the Court considered just. The statement of defence set out that plaintiff was employed at Rewanui and not Runanga, and denied liability to pay compensation. Mr P. J. O’Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr F. A. Kitchingham for defendant. Lack of Unanimity. In giving judgment for defendant, his Honor referred to the lack of unanimity of expert medical opinion on the subject. Humanity generally and the medical profession in particular did not know a great deal about the causes of cancer. In this case, the Court being a court of laymen, had to be guided by expert medical opinion. In the circumstances, the Court could not lay it down that in this or in any other case a simple trauma could be the cause of an osteo-genetic malignant tumour. If the Court did lay that down, it would be mere assumption. It could only be said that it was possible, and more probable, that the osteo-genetic type of growth was something peculiar to a person and was not necessarily caused b}’- an accident.

“Plaintiff must lose this case, and although he is to be given every sympathy, the Court cannot possibly stretch the law and treat surmise as truth,” concluded his Honor.