Document 4JkY877r7ejgYZerDoaKJEw5j

* a^ %. ' ~s .. WOBEEBS* COMPENSATION SEPOBTS. . jw) IX THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION C01QIISSI0N OP . NEW SOOTH WALES. Mo^ss, 24, . CoramLuioxo, J., Membkr. Medical Araeswr: Dr. B. 31. Mackar. JONES V. JAMES HARDIE AND CO. LTD. Duet dittate--Death remits fro* dittate eauted hr eilieo dut--Dxut of proof--Section S (1), Worker? Compexoation Act, 1926-1938. A fibro-Bixer died from fbrasis of the Ians* complicated by taperadded infection, the fibrosis being eaaaed by the inhalation of duet. Hi* widow eiaiaed eoapenaation, alleging that the fibrosis wu* caused or aggracated by aabeetot duR to which bit employment with the respondent had exposed him. The respondent denied liability on the groand that the disease eras eanaed by silica dust. The Conmi**ion, per Larxoxi, found that the applicant bad not discharged the onus of proving her allegation, bnt that the respondeat luid discharged the onus of prating that the doR disease was caused by silica dust. Parsonage for the applicant. Kvlynack for the respondeat.. * /* * Lamokd, J.: The app^cant claims compensation as the widow and total dependant of Samuel Jones, whose death on the 14tfi February, 1939, was alleged to hare resulted from fibrosis of the lungs caused and/or aggravated by abestos dust with which it was alleged his work over a period of years with the respond ent company as a fibrtwniser brought him into contact. lMOT. . The respondent company.alleges that the death of the deceased was not the result of "injury" arising out of and in the course of his employment, that notice of the injury was not given as required by the Act' and that the respondent company was thereby prejudiced. - The deceased was bora in 1884 and worked in anthracite mines in Wales. Great Britain, from 1907 to 1913. -He then came to Australia, where between the years 1913 and 1919 he worked in various capacities, e.gn as a general labourer, con crete miser, brick pit worker, and coal miner; in 1919 he entered the employment of the respondent company for whom he worked until 1937 when his health commenced to fail, his main symptom* being shortuess of breath, failing appetite, and loss of weight plaintiffs exhibit |nG5j^ OBO WOSILQtS' COiiTENSATlO.S SEPOBTS. two. Evidence was given by one, Thomas Jilts, who stated that Jon* for the ten yean prior to deceased ceasing work he did the j same class of work as deceased, that sueh work involved raking JUava* Co. out asbestos from certain asbestos rooms or bins and that dost Tfcatmp. vas frequent, that'it was blowing ail the time and that it would Jmurrr. get in one's nose and throat. i*nW, j. b Hunt, Works Manager, stated that the asbestos was milled and the dust taken out of it before it was received by respondent company, that when received it was similar is appear* once-to kapok and not below one-sixteenth of an inch in size, that asbestos dust could be seen in the asbestos bins when the asbestos was being-raked out, but'that in the mixag room cement dust but not asbestos dost could be seen. Deceased's working place was weU ventilated and no complaints had been made previously by men working in the mixing section. . Dr. -A. -0. V. Tyams, who investigated the dust conditions mot respondent company's factory in July sad November of 1938, . .'/i stated there was a possibility of an asbestos hazard. No evidence "was, however, tendered to show what concentration of asbestos ".T"-' j-dust there was from time to time in the asbestos or mixing .''r.'Jtooms, and very Uttle help can be obtained from consideration p .- the fact, as it is alleged, that no complaints were mad* by .torother workmen. ft Dr. A. 1L Stanton, d `Granville, who was deceased's doctor . 'over a number of yean, deposed to having treated deceased -between 1931 and 1986 for minor sicknesses. :ln 1936 deceased was -away from work -for two months with influenza and there after .deceased appeared to go downhill. On 30th November, 1937, he attended deceased for what he described as silicosu of .the lungs. From March, 1938, to February, 1939, deceased had a very bad cough and was extremely weak and emaciated. Occasionally he had a temperature, but practically no sputum. - An X-ray examination of deceased's chest was- made by Dr. >D. J. Maitland in September, 1938. This skiagram has been interpreted by Dr. Maitland. Dr. J. G. Edwards and Dr. W. T. Nelson, .as evidencing lung changes due to silicosis. Both Drs. Edwards and Nelson were of the opinion that the X-ray eviilenced. some super-added infection and ail were agreed that it - -was impossible to say whether asbestos had or had not played . a-part. -- 4 WOHEEBS' COilPENSiTION BEPOBTS. 131 Dr. Nelson stated that the X-ray showed a typical infective 1939. granular type of fibrosis tine to inhalation of silica-bearing dusts, jom whereas asbestos fibrosis gave an appearance of ground glass badness. Dr. Shearman made eight tests of deceased's sputum without r. JiXtS Hina a Co. in. finding any asbestos bodies or tubercle bacilli ___ ' Xo*oui, 3. Clinical evidence was furnished by Dr. W. E. Fisher for the applicant and Drs. W. T. Nelson and CL C. Willcocks for the respondent. Dr. Fisher stated that he admitted the possibility of pseu- * moconiosis as the result of mining in Wales, but that if the dust exposure in Australia were correct it would be equally possible HT: lor the terminal clinical picture to be aocounted for by asbestos ;- dost. He further considered that if there bad been some pro- *** grass of a pre-existing pneumoconiosis due to mining in Wales, | exposure to-dust here must lave bad an.&ggrarating effect ^ . .... ..j*> Drs. Nelson and WILlpocks on the other hand expressed -the % view that deceased's death could be accounted for entirely by ** reference to silicosis with super-added infection, and that there were not sufficient fads to-found, s'medical opinion that asbestos dust bad aggravated flesesied's condition.* _ Summary. a " In attempting to assess the extent to which. deceased was affected by asbestos dust, -the following facts are- outstanding^- (l) While, generally speahing, exposure to asbestos dust ' is an industrial hazard, there is nothing known as to what degree of exposure is necessary to cause asbestosis. In this connection, Dr. Willcocks took some slides of the dust where applicant worked which showed large asbestos fibres, whereas. *39togiically only the very smallest fibres can he injurious. In silicosis it has been stated that only particles below 10 micro-millimetres are capable of producing harmful results by inhala tion : <2: Examination of deceased's sputum revealed no asbestos bodies: (0 Examination of deceased's lungs by X-ray revealed no appearance consistent witb-asbestosis.