Alleged Fishbone Caused Injury to Finger

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7278, 4 October 1933, Page 12

Alleged Fishbone Caused Injury to Finger

RESERVED DECISION IN CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION Claiming £lO 11s under the Workers Compensation Act, John Brew, of Palmerston North, took action in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., "seeking to obtain that amount from Frank Wynne, restaurant-keeper, of Palmerston North.

Mr McLeavey appeared for defendant and Mr Grant for plaintiff, while Mr Sinclair watched proceedings cm behalf of S. V. Sharman, who was interested in the action- as a former partner of the defendant.

Plaintiff in his claim alleged that while employed by defendant he pricked his finger with a fishbone, causing him to be incapacitated for eight weeks and three days.

John Brew, from the box, said that he had been employed by defendant at the “Hole in the Wall” restaurant at 17s weekly, plus meals. His work was to wash up, scrub and do any other tasks necessary in this regard. When he had first had the swelling —on June 13 —in the finger he had noticed a puncture hole in the second finger of his right hand. As the linger became worse he had seen two chemists, but. they had refused to attend to it. He had then acquainted his employer of the fact and had been advised to see a doctor. Defendant had advised him to go to his own doctor. The fingeT had eventually turned septic and an operation on it had been necessary. Defendant had told him that he would get his wages in full and retain his employment. Ho had, however, omy been given two payments of 7s. The only way he could account for the injury was that the finger .had been punctured by a fishbone during the course of his employment. After his return from the hospital he had had meals in defendant’s restaurant, but subsequently' had been told that he would have to pay for them. To Mr McLeavey, plaintiff said that he could not say when ho actually received the injury to his finger, although he was positive that ho had secured it at his work in t-ho shop. It was not true that ho had told defendant and a. Mr Turner that he had possibly received the injury to his finger chopping wood. Ho had pricked his finger with a needle to ease tho pain. It was correct that he had attended the Wellington races on Juno 19. To Mr Sinclair plaintiff answered that he did not know if there had been a puncture in his finger when he had shown it to Mr Sharman. It was correct that he had pricked tho finger with a needle before Dr. Mitchell had inspected it. When at Wellington he had done some work.

Archie Cuff, employed by Mr Sharman in a restaurant in Main street, stated that he had worked for defendant. He knew that plaintiff’s finger had been injured, and plaintiff had told him that he thought it had been caused by a fishbono during the washing up. Wynne had told him on one occasion that ho would pay plaintiff in full, although he was only entitled to two-thirds of his wages.

Defendant in. evidence told tho Court that the first he knew of plaintiff’s injury was three nights before he had sent him to a doctor. lie had told Brew to go to a chemist and later to go to his own doctor. Plaintiff had told him at first that he did not know where or how he had sustained the injury. After plaintiff had returned f rom tho doctor ho had told Brew that ho had no need to worry as his board (7s weekly) would bo paid and that meals could be obtained at tho restaurant us usual. Defendant also told plaintiff his job ivould be kept open for him. Subsequently defendant had visited the doctor and had there learned that plaintiff had said he received the injury at his employment and through a fishbone. When asked why ho had said this, plaintiff had stated that ho did not know what else to tell the doctor. It was not until Brew had been dismissed that he had actually blamed defendant.

Morris Turner, formerly employed by defendant, declared that Brew had borrowed a needle from him to prick his finger. In conversation plaintiff had stated that he did not know where he had injured it, but that it might have been caused by a fishbone or chopping wood at home. That had been said two or three days before plaintiff had visited tho doctor.

Dr. D. M. Mitchell, of Palmerston North, said that ho was first consulted by plaintiff on June .16. Complaint had been made of pains in the second finger of the right hand and the patient had declared that the pain had commenced eight hours previously. Plaintiff attributed the trouble to his finger having been punctured by a fishbone during the course of his employment the night before his visit. Plaintiff did not know if there was a fishbone .in his finger, but felt that there was. Witness added that the finger was swollen, and subsequently he 'had sent plaintiff to hospital, where an operation had been performed. The patient after his discharge from hospital had attended as a.n outpatient until July 4. On August 12 witness had given him a certificate to show that the finger was cured and that plaintiff was in readiness to resume employment, Prom July 4 until August S plaintiff had not attended the hospital for treatment but on August 8 he had gone to the institution for a dressing.

Stephen Victor Sharman also gave evidence stating that there had been no evidence of a puncture in the finger when it was shown to him, while

plaintiff had added that he did not, know how he had don 6 it. The Magistrate reserved his decision.