The employers of a workman who had sustained an injury to the thumb of his right hand, and who was in receipt of compensation, sought to have the compensation ended on the ground that the workman’s incapacity was due, not to the injury which he had sustained, but to his unreasonable refusal to submit to surgical treatment. The medical evidence led by the employers was to the effect that if the workman underwent certain operations which were recommended by their doctors, the first of which involved the amputation of the top of the thumb, and the second (which was recommended by a specialist) was an operation of a different kind, the condition of his hand would be materially improved. The workman’s medical adviser, whom he had consulted in reference to both proposals, was clearly of opinion that neither of the operations proposed would have the effect predicted. Held ( affirming the judgment of the First Division) that in the circumstances stated there was evidence which justified the finding of the arbiter that the employers had failed to prove that the workman’s incapacity was due to unreasonable refusal to undergo surgical treatment.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
Citations:
[1920] UKHL 74, 58 SLR 74
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Employment, Personal Injury
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.631548
