Denaby Pit Accident  Sequel – Unable or Unwillingly – Work Offered and Refused

October 1908

Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Wednesday 28 October 1908

Unable or Unwillingly
Work Offered and Refused
Denaby Pit Accident  Sequel

At Nottingham County Court, Ronald Creamer, of 10, Brook Square, Conisborough appealed for the revision of a decision in a compensation claim between the applicant and Cadeby Colliery Co., Ltd., Rotherham.

Mr J.O. Andrews (instructed by Messrs. Raley) was for Creamer, and Mr. W. M. Gichard (Rotherham) defended.

Mr. Andrews said in September 1906 the applicant was working in the Denaby Colliery when, as the result of fall of coal, he sustained a serious injury, fracturing both legs.  He was totally incapacitated, and received compensation in January this year, though he was at work for several months in the meantime.

At Doncaster county Court on. May 24th last, an award was made in Creamer’s favour for the compensation up to May 30, and a declaration of liability afterwards. That award was made on the understanding that the respondents should work for the applicant, such as working with tractors, at a wage sufficient to realise 33s 6d per week.

Mr. Gichard protested that the arrangement was for 3s. 6d. a day and percentage.

Proceeding, Mr. Andrews said Creamer returned to work on May 31, and since that time had been shovelling refuse and other arduous work. He ultimately complained to the manager that he could not continue the work, but was told that was the only employment he could be given.

Thomas Corbett, a contractor, and Doctor Walker having given evidence,

Mr. Gichard, for the respondents pointed out there was no change of circumstances. From May To September of last year the man was given time to recover, but when he was given work at the end of that time he declined, and the result was the application made in May.

Dr. R. J. Pye Smith and Doctor Forster. Declared that Creamer was able to do the work had been put to.

Judge Allen said he had come to the conclusion that the work was suitable and that he could have done it had he chosen to so. Therefore there was no reason to interfere with the award, and he dismissed the application