A workman on 21st April 1919 sustained injuries to his eyes and was admitted to hospital. On 9th June 1919 his right eye was removed. On 3rd July 1919 the certifying surgeon granted a certificate in which he stated that the workman was then suffering from ulceration of the corneal surface of the eye. He further stated in the certificate as a leading symptom of the disease that the workman had lost his eye as the result of corneal ulceration. An appeal to the medical referee was on 15th July 1919 dismissed by him on the ground that as the injured eye had been removed he could not say for what purpose the enucleation was performed. The arbiter, holding that the certificate was self-contradictory, and not such a certificate as was required by section 8 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, refused compensation. Held ( affirming the judgment of the First Division, diss. Lord Cullen) that the certificate was valid for the purpose of entitling the workman to compensation under section 8, sub-section (1), of the Act.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
Citations:
[1920] UKHL 80, 58 SLR 70
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Personal Injury, Employment
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.631549