Mexborough and Swinton Times May 8, 1915
Conisborough Man’s Excuses
Strong Comments by the Judge
An interesting case was heard from Conisborough, in which His Honour was asked to renew an award made under the workmen’s Compensation Act, granting 16s 6d per week to Israel Rogers of Conisborough, was injured in the Yorkshire Main Colliery at Edlington on November 13, 1914.
Mr G.W.Andrews appeared for the company and Mr H Anderson (Leeds) represented the respondent.
It was stated that the man was employed at the colliery, and through an accident received an injury to his back. Compensation at the rate of 16s 6d was allowed, and it was now alleged on behalf of the Colliery Company that he was fit to do light work, such as lamp cleaning, which had being offered him.
Evidence was given by Dr Payne, of the Southport, Convalescent Home, and Dr Cobb, Sheffield. Whilst in the home, it was stated, his condition improved, but he was discharged owing to complaints as to his conduct.
Dr Cobb, who examine the man in February, said he could find nothing wrong with his spine. He was fit to do the work offered him. On the other hand, it was said it was purely a question of medical evidence, and Dr McClure of Conisborough, said he did not think he was fit to work in the mine. He examined him on Sunday, and he complained of pains in the back and tingling in his legs. There was considerable tenderness over the region of the spine. Dr Wilson, of Doncaster, also said he was not fit to work in the pit.
The respondent said that on December 24 he received a note from Mr Clayton, the manager, along with a recommendation for the Southport Convalescent Home. He was there three weeks and four days. Then of the second week he made application for an extension of time which was granted. During that week they were painting the home and he complained about it, because it was not doing him any good. Dr Payne told him that if he was not satisfied he could go home. They were painting and decorating the dining hall, where he had to spend a good deal of time. He was not the only one to complain. He left the home on his own account. He had never heard any complaints as to his conduct.
Replying to further questions, the respondent said he was paying 3s 3d rent per week. He had lost weight, and now only weighed 8 stone and a half. He tried the light work for three weeks, and he was ill two or three days in the second week. He also had attacks of nervousness and dizziness. He did not think it was capable of doing the work.
Mr Anderson: Is there any work the colliery company can offer you you are capable of performing? – If there was I should not be here.
Miss Andrews: Your own doctor and said lamp cleaning is just the work that will do you good. Don’t you agree with him? – No answer.
Do you know why your own union and refused to take the case for you on this occasion? – They have taken it as far as usual.
Is it not because of another good reason – because of your discharge from the Home? – Not to my knowledge.
For the respondent Mr Anderson submitted that his friend had not proved any change of circumstances since the last hearing, and until he did so he was not entitled to a revision of the award.
His Honour held there had been a change of circumstances that the respondent had improved in health will stop he was a different man now that he was before he went to the Southport Home. He held he was well able to do the work offered to him. He diminished the award to 4 shillings per week. His Partner commencing very severely upon the respondent’s evidence, which he said he did not believe. He was liable to be proceeded against in another Court for making such untrue statements.