Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.
Objection to a Lump Sum.
Decision was reserved by Mr. B. J.
Craig, S.M, In the Fremantle Local Court
yesterday, in a case in which the lMel
bourne Steamship Co, Ltd., was apply
ing for the redemption with a lump
sum of weekly payments of workers' com
pensation to Ernest Tomlinson, lumper,
of Bunbury. A medical board reported
that Tomlinson would probably be fully
recovered in six months from January
13, when the report was made, and the
applicants asked for a settlement based
on the amount payable over this period.
The repondent was unwilling to accept
a lump sum in place of weekly payments.
Mr. L. E. Coleman (instructed by Mr.
F. G. Unmack) 'appeared for the appli
cant company and Mr. John Dunphy
(instructed by Messrs. Dwyer, Durack
and Dunphy) for the respondent.
On October 5, 1937, the respondent was
injured while working on the steamer
Lowana. It was stated that since then
he had been receiving compensation. On
January 13 the medical. board came to
the conclusion that he was suffering from
neurosis caused by the accident and that
he should be able to resume work in
six months. Shortly before the hearing
he was again examined. The board con
sidered that he had improved and should
be fit for work in three months. He!
complained of pains in the stomach, but
these were not considered a direct sequel
of the accident.
The respondent said that after about
five months on compensation he at
tempted to resume work as a lumper, but
after two and a half days' work he be
came so ill that he had to go into hos
pitaL Since then he had tried various
kinds of light work but it had caused
him so much discomfort that he could
do very little.
'Mr. Dunphy argued that the medical
estimate of the duration of the complaint
could not be accepted as conclusive. The
fairest thing would be to allow the res
pondent to continue on weekly compen
sation until the six months had expired
and again refer the case to a medical
board.
Mr. Coleman held that the Magistrate
had no jurisdiction to postpone the claim
for six months. The respondent had
agreed to refer the case to the board
and a decision based on the board's
finding should be given as a matter of
course.
$