Document emwQaL5KJaK4E20j3BbObxLGG

FILE NAME: Electrical Insulation (ELEC) DATE: 1955 DOC#: ELEC005 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Government Agency Report - UK MINISTRY OF AND NATIONAL PENSIONS INSURANCE Reported Decisions of the Commissioner under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts volume I 1948 to 1952 LONDON: HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY 1955 c2 ^ 7 ^ ' OFFICE ur^/vr|b ^ a s i o y s i op. t h s Co/uMiss/o/verg. ' _ :nD'EH th bif\moNM- nfsu/z/Wce ( /MDUsrzi/bL mturieS ) &CTS , ....... , ifiii)^ii^#ifiii`'* VOLIAHAt 0U _ _ ________ ' ....' ' ---'T-- : gf&jIM) m r) 3. <Hi Ui question if" arising out of ": uta separate point tin? dramttaus of tl case tui to in* to resemble fairly closely those of Nixkt v. Ihtync an<l Hunt |UM0 \i K.lh <W| approval b,V tin? flouse of l,ords itt Trim v. Kelly. 1 dealing with the question a' presented in the as of NisbC't. t'n<r.ns.|J.uvdy M l t said that " this really depends opo*> th nature of th man's duties ami till' stout to which tin;, duties iuvolvud him in special risk "..tin; risk in that as being th risk of being attacked us h was while, travelling in a train in the course of a journey Which hu was in the habit of making for his employers to convey money for Urn payment of wages. Just as in that case it was held that " a man who is known to be carrying a bag of money is a tempting object for criminals to attack ", it seems clear that at any rate in a neighbourhood where it was known that he was collecting insurance premiums the claimant was etijmsed to a similar risk, and a risk increased on the evening when he was so engaged till about, Id p.m. On that aspect of the case I think that there would have been enough in what night be called " the surrounding circumstances '* to justify the inference that tint ruffians who attacked the claimant did sit because they knew that he had been collecting premiums, The. matter, is, however, put beyond doubt by a supplementary statement, by (lie claimant as to the, result of inquiries the substantial accuracy of which t have no reason to question. f)n the broad facts of the ease the basis of my decision briefly stated...is that the risk of being attacked as be was in the course of his rounds anil on his way home by thieves win knew him to be so engaged was a special risk of the claimant's employment and that accordingly the injurie# so sustained were caused by accident .-withiii the tneaniiig of Section 7 arising out of and in the course of that employment. 4. I disallow (lie appeal. 0.12.49 iN tn is tK iA L d is a jm :,m i;k t w iN tw rr c.s.t. m 4 (.,.) Hx-miiicr rtitfitsvU in sorting mm-ferroni metals invlmh")i cal>k's with asbciiti.n vcvei'ina. //// that iltlnmali (*l(' annmnt of ushestos was ijiimU, tie was engaged in (lie " iiainllina " of ta'sliw. 1. My decision is that pneumoconiosis is a prescribed disease it relation to the claimant. Althongb the majority decision of the bocal Appeal Tribunal -the Chairman dissenting ,-is " claim allowed ", the grounds of their decision make it clear that, as pointed out by the. Insurance <M'hcer now concerned with the case, the otily question so far under consideratitm is whether tin; claimant has been employed on or after the appointed day in any occupation set out in Part II of the lorst Schedule of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, (S.l. ISM# Nq. 1371.! On that issue the claimant maintained that he was entitled to succeed under the provisions of paragraph {>() of Part II and on the evidence before them as to the nature of his occupation the majority of the bocal Appeal Tribunal held that it involved tlu*. . . Ihiinltiutf of asbestos or an admixture of asbestos ` he was employed t ban man dissented bos p bother information j;.i tliv v,vnd nature of i smiin informationof th,' qi i vitbmittcd for niy ei| ;J 'flic claimant'# wd \j,j !,il Tribunal j to th 1 " lie was nine unemployed until I m'r.ip metal, tn H neb as aluminium Ihat .-lightly lss tl; a-bestos. He air1 by the asbestos fjcf 1tided by Hoard i i 11 duties included i f i aide, burning the, , bundles." * ! I it (.! tight t" supplement j tdovefi. the National G j t < the claimant'# claim'` a, (don of the btHtal App 1 j the claimant in hi# Ifjj " The nature of t . upper. . . and ultimo workshops in (he . jd and I have to supjjr i h |a their replies the empj j ,!, i maintenance of colli a job sitting down, sOi in p ply to the questMi , i, ,,filing this tain ? t , n.oi.ilv prior tt> 24th Art ,t),| explained by them itfji tthiiiMi having been giyf'i , , a general labourer undp: " The cables huudh of cables handled " i i tmtenl is very small!' or lead sheathed wit!1f>*j that statement is signed il,,.fined, the |M>sition of 11 ; f 1 I>n that uiformatio; . , fit Iiee justifying a find ! >paragraph t*of J'art 1' is >., 1 think, wyil-fdttmh t.f the Tribunal seem to K 1 A- jegmdii paragraphOth 1 * " Vie point---tlut circumely those of Nisbot v. e !louse* of Lords in seated in the case of h'ihIs upon the nature ties involved him in Iliving attacked ns he ftu'v which he was in jy for the payment of ,i who is known to be minals to attack ", it it was known tliat he exposed to a similar So engaged till about tore would have been ^instances " to justify nt did so because they ,ttcr. i.s, however, put jmant as to the result no reason to question, on--briefly stated- -is of his rounds and on ted was a special risk ; injuries so sustained ion "J - -arising out of t Jj. M/M (K.L.) Jutting cables thall, lie wits ni disease in relation p|Hsd Tribunal-the ds of their decision Ulcer now concerned ation is whether the iy in any occupation nswanoC (Iadustrial f. Him No. is9 i.i led to succeed under vidence before them kud Appeal Tribunal iimixture Pf asbestos ""**m ** **a ^ :- t il* tl + fl* V ^ y i H i.. . .. . , C.8.I. C8/4 (K.L.) in *' he was employed sorting out asbestos incidental to mining The * Imirman dissented because in bis opinion " before a decision was arrived .tt further information should have been obtained from the employers as to tiie exact nature of the claimant's work ami the duties entailed ", and further information of that kind which I consider important has been obtained ami submitted for thy consideration. ft. The claimant's evidence as recorded at the hearing before tin* Local Appeal Tribunal is to the following effect :-** " He was a miner ami worked at the coal face until 1931. He was unemployed until l9iH when lie got a joli at . . . workshops sorting scrap mtal. In 1910 he got a job there sorting non-ferrous metals such as aluminium, zinc, copper brass, copper wire, etc. He states that slightly less than 50 per cent, of copper wire has a covering of asbestos. lie maintains that bis pneumoconiosis has been caused by tin* asbestos before referred to and dust from old cables. He was ecuitii>d by Hoard as suffering from that trouble on 12th March. 1949. His duties included inter tilin the removing of asbestos covering from the cable, burning the insulation oil the copper and collecting copper in bundles." !i i'-' right to supplement tliat record by reference to the replies of tbo em ployers the National foal Hoard- -to inquiries as to the particulars given o* the claimant's claim and the further information obtained after the decision of the l.oeal Appeal Tribunal. Tlu* description of iiis work as given by ilie claimant in his claim was as follows : " The nature of my work is to classify all tin* non-ferrous metals, copper . . . amt aluminium tliat comes from all the collieries and electrical workshops in the . . . arch. I have to barn copper wire to clean it and I have to supply brass foundry with non-ferrous metals." In their replies the employers stated that " the industry " was " the repair ami maintenance of colliery machinery " and that the claimant's job was " a job sitting down, sorting out copper wire from old electric cables In reply to the question " Have you any further observations to make regarding this claim ? ""' they replied "His condition i.s of long standing, 'mainly prior to `till April, 1935 ", That information was supplemented aid explained by them in a letter dated Iftth May, 19*19..the decision of the t ribunal having Usm given on 27th April--in which the claimant is described as a general labourer ami it is stated that :--* " The cables handled by him containing asbestos comprise one per cent, of cables bundled ", and that " throughout the year the asbestos content is very small.. approximately nil. All other cables are bitumen or lead sheathed with single or double wire armour." That statement is signed by an official of the employers holding, I am informed, the |H>sition of Welfare Ollieor, ;L On that information the Insurance Officer maintains tliat there is no evidence justifying a finding in favour of the claimant either under paragraph lo or paragraph 9 of Hart 11. So far as the contention relates to paragraph ift it is, I think, well-founded and both the claim and the majority decision of the Tribunal seem to lie based...as 1 bave indicated...<m paragraph 9(a). As regard paragraph 9 the Insurance Officer, naturally and I think properly - I I 4- I: ?- V- 1d M P"3i, n.v P,-. rii i .1 i i r :h*><; < i relying on tin* report yf the Welfare Officer which I liovy uuotvd, maintains Hint tin* presence of such n mull amount of asbestouamongst nil (In; materials bundled by the claimant (loon not justify tin* view that bis occupation in one " involving Hu*working or handling of uwWtftouor my admixture of asltestos 11 maintains in particular that on v reasonable interpretation of the word " handling " an owed in the phrase " working or handling" it should fw read as meaning " handling to a substantial extent I feel, however, that, the provisions of Part II and of the particular paragraph do not justify -in relation to the (picstion of presumption which I have to decide a restriction of tin; meaniny or scope of the phrase in that way. As was stressed in relation to some yf the similar provisions and phrases considered in eases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, so hem it must, 1? observed that the word " substantial " or " substantially " is not mol to (pudify the effect of the term and also that it is used frequently in other parts of Part II. Another consideration which I regard as probably of eipial weight against such a restriction at this stage of the cast? is the fact the present decision does not and is not intended to amount to an allowance of the claim. It, merely gives tlm claimant the benefit of a presumption under Regulation 4(2) that the disease is due to the nature of the employment " unless the contrary is proved ", and obviously proof of the extent of the " handling ", whether substantial or not, is material to the consideration and decision of the ultimate question of allowance or disallowance of (lie claim. S. I disallow the appeal. .12.4 iKpitimtiAt, pisAPMiMnNt iwNurr c m . /#> u u ,.> Mailer tireuma employeil (ove (round ill a enltiwy d^wclling caul and vmil duiil. Ih h l ta lie eujiap'd in " linildliiii; " uunerahi v s ly iw in i Irani the mine. 1. My decision is that pneumoconiosisJ: r'fiprescribed disease in relation to the claimant. 2. For some time before nth/duly, HM8 and until October, 1018. the claimant was employed us a bodef reman working above ground at a colliery, the boiler house at which hMvorked being situated approximately 30 yards from No. 1 shaft and tbe/Saime distance from No. 3 shaft. The record of evidence at the hearing-'oefore the Local Appeal Tribunal shows that " his duties entail tula' ami shovelling coal ami coal dust according to the claimant's evidence seven or eight tons per shift the coal dust, etc. entering the bojl<ir house by a shule ". 3. The. fcw.al Appeal Tribunal, reversing the decision of the Insurance Officer, lndu that under the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuriesv (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, 1048 [S.l. 1048 No. 13711 pnemfmeoniosis, from which he has been certified to be suffering, was a pro* scribed disease in relation to the claimant in respect that " In.* has been occupied in an occupation set out in Part II paragraph 10(A) " of the First * Iti iiule fo tlio.se i H>>lviiij; th work 'd u i m I* extiiicted . i> ii ilut th dati1 mU.' Uls cimi uu ii iiig fo " ubove l ili' ori; in wliicli *nii Hot be desti il.ila-, iati th shuj I'uM-.m' de.scri!cdi *' handjiug '' as ut )simiu on u con ili telatimi to tini .j'p.lll llt CO|X` of| nudi r siib.paragrt I 1 disallow tl t liiini f mm miM VVtlHtl *t I My tlecision e (Industriai i il her husband, v ,,lilted after the ? ,,i in, employment ,! Deceased w bis - suffered by vi liti! the port 1 I .mi satisfied H> di ease and was e i li July, 1048. 3 The injury ;> . an injury by n< the normal go ,i merely on the port was, an w.trife and the ; oi life, or bevaus h i attack and an 4 It is Sl|gg< gaided as bein{ unexpected. Bi t v accident. T!