Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a Stated Case on appeal in an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), between William Arnott, miner, Denside Cottage, Kirkcaldy, appellant, and The

Page: 829↓

Fife Coal Company, Limited, Bowhill Colliery, Cardenden, respondents.

The Case stated—“This is an arbitration in an application for review of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, Schedule 1, section 16. The facts of the case are as follows—1. On 8th September 1908 William Arnott, the appellant, was a miner in the respondents' employment at their Bowhill Colliery, Cardenden. On said date his left eye was injured, and it was removed on 23rd September 1908. 2. From the date of the accident until he started work above ground in the month of September 1909 the appellant was paid full compensation at the rate of £1 per week. 3. In the month of September 1909 the appellant started work above ground in the employment of the respondents. His partial compensation was fixed at 13s. 4d. per week, and he was paid at that rate until 13th January 1911. He has received no compensation since that date. 4. On said 13th January 1911 the appellant was examined by Dr George Mackay, 20 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh, medical referee in ophthalmic cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, on a remit under section 15 of Schedule 1 of said Act. 5. The report of said medical referee, lodged on 18th January 1911, is in the following terms—‘The said William Arnott had his left eye removed on 23rd September 1908, following upon the accident for which compensation is claimed. The socket is at present slightly inflamed as the result of wearing an artificial eye too freely. That, however, should soon yield to appropriate treatment. The right eye has a very slight error of refraction, but otherwise is quite a sound one. Though he complains of some subjective sensations of occasional headache, there does not appear to be any obvious cause for these which could be assigned to the injury, and his condition is such that, having for the past fifteen months been engaged in work at the pithead, he is now in my opinion as fit as any other one-eyed man to resume his work under ground.’ 6. Following upon said report, the respondents lodged in process in the Sheriff Court at Kirkcaldy a minute craving the Court to end the appellant's compensation as at 13th January 1911. The appellant lodged answers to said minute, stating, inter alia, that he had not recovered from the injuries which he had sustained, and that he had not recovered his earning capacity following upon said injuries; that he was still under medical treatment; that since the date of the accident the socket of the left eye, which had been removed, had been in an inflamed condition, painful and suppurating; that he suffered from headaches during his shift and after; that these headaches were brought about through his having to stoop or bend, and were a result of the injuries which he had sustained; that they interfered with his capacity for work and his earning ability; and further, that the sight of the remaining eye was weak and became dim and fagged by the end of the shift. The appellant further stated, that while his earning capacity had been and was at that time much reduced as a result of the injuries which he had sustained, he was quite prepared to try work below ground so that his earning capacity might be properly tested. He averred, further, that a certain period at least should elapse to enable him to accustom himself to his altered condition. 7. At a hearing on the minute and answers the appellant's agent asked for a proof as to the appellant's earning capacity. I asked him whether he was in a position to maintain that the earning capacity of a one-eyed miner was less than that of a two-eyed miner, and he stated that he was not. I held that the report of the medical referee being conclusive as to the appellant's condition at its date meant that his incapacity for work, so far as due to the said accident, was at an end, and therefore repelled the answers for the claimant as irrelevant, and terminated his compensation from the date of the medical referee's report, namely, 13th January 1911.”

The question of law for the opinion of the Court is—“In the circumstances above stated, was I entitled to end the compensation payable to the appellant?”

Counsel for appellant moved for a proof. The respondents' counsel opposed the motion, and argued that as the appellant's agent had said he was not going to prove that his (the appellant's) earning capacity was less than that of a two—eyed miner (which was the only fact relevant), the Sheriff-Substitute had rightly terminated the appellant's compensation.