Minutes of evidence of the departmental committee appointed to inquire and report whether the following diseases can properly by added to those enumerated in the third schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 : namely: (1) cowpox, (2) Dupuytren's Contraction, (3) Clonic spasm of the eyelids, apart from nystagmus, (4) writers' cramp.
- Great Britain. Departmental Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases.
- Date:
- 1913
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Minutes of evidence of the departmental committee appointed to inquire and report whether the following diseases can properly by added to those enumerated in the third schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 : namely: (1) cowpox, (2) Dupuytren's Contraction, (3) Clonic spasm of the eyelids, apart from nystagmus, (4) writers' cramp. Source: Wellcome Collection.
9/180 (page 5)
![EVIDENCE. . 5 12 October 1912.] (Sir Clifford Allbutt.) I do not know that I quite catch the point. (Judge Ruegg.) That the certificate may be given as a precautionary matter, that it does not at the moment incapacitate him, but very soon will. It is a pre- cautionary certificate. When they find a man develop- ing some symptoms of lead in the Potteries, the certifying surgeon gives what they call a precautionary suspension, and it is very hard upon the men sometimes because they get no compensation. (Sir Clifford Allbutt.) That is the point I wanted to understand, but I was not lawyer enough to do so. (Witness.) Thatis only where we have special factory regulations giving that power to the certifying surgeon. 91. (Judge Ruegg.) You have it in lead ?—Yes, for the protection of the individual. 92. Do you think it would be wise for this Com- mittee to consider the advisability of allowing a pre- cautionary suspension or suspension for precautionary reasons ?—I do not think so, because the suspension for lead is because the man may recover. In this case you may suspend a man for ever and he will be no better. 93. There is no recovery ?—No. 94. No amelioration of the condition? — No. Probably in many cases it would progress even if he left his work. 95. In other cases it might remain stationary ?—It might remain stationary. The man whose hands are condition 20 years ago, and it has not moved since then. 96. But he is a worker ?>—Yes, he has worked the whole of the time. All these hands are those of workers. 97. (Sir Clifford Allbutt.) They are all lace workers ? —Yes, all lace workers’ hands. You will be able to see any of those four sets of hands at Nottingham. In one of the other cases quoted in Appendix 2 the man only noticed his condition, I think it was, four years ago when I saw him first, and he has been com- pelled to leave the trade, it has come on so rapidly. 98. (Judge Ruegg.) You see the matter in which I am chiefly concerned is the administration of this Act in the county courts. Do you think difficulties of this kind would be likely to arise: that the certifying surgeon might give a certificate of disablement, and, as you know, his certificate is conclusive quo ad the disease only ?—Yes. 99. Then the question might arise, as it does im * course of the work?” In the words of the Act, did this particular disease from which this man was unquestionably suffering, for the certifying surgeon says he has it, arise under the employment? Do you apprehend that might be in some cases a question of very great difficulty for a court to decide ?—I apprehend that if the man’s employment was not included in the processes in column 2 there would be great difficulty. For instance, if the process of lace machine minding were stated in column 2, there would be no question. In other diseases the difficulty would be very great, and the onus of proof would lie entirely on the worker. 100. You mean then that if it is confined to the lace industry you do not think there will be any great difficulty, but if it is to be general you think in certain cases there may be difficulty That is so. As regards the lace trade, the probability of a case occurring which is not due to the occupation is small. Possibly cases may occur, but no great injustice will be done to the trade. 101. I am afraid I did not quite follow the illus- tration that you were giving just now, that your experience was that in lace workers this disease mani- fested itself in what you call the ring finger, the third finger. Do you mean that that would be valuable as a diagnosis of whether the disease was of industrial origin or not ?—In the lace trade it would be of some value. 102. You use it for that purpose us a diagnosis ?— As of some value in diagnosing. u 15180 [ Continued. 103. Not conclusive ?—Not conclusive, but if it were found that the contraction started at the ring fingers I think it would help very considerably. j 104, (Chatrman.) The fact that by catching hold of the lever in the way you describe, the pressure is in fact brought to bear just at one point, and that when you look into the actual cases you find it at the same point again, is something more than a coincidence; it is a strong presumption ; that is the way you put it? —A strong presumption. 105. (Dr. Legge.) In the description of the disease you suggested, “permanent contraction of one or ‘ more fingers produced by fibrous bands in the palm ‘ of the hand,” do you think one ought to add the point you laid such stress upon ‘from localised pressure” ?—If by that means we can exclude other cases, I think, yes. 106. Take, for instance, the point of a trauma and ascar development. That is a different thing from what we are considering, namely, Dupuytren’s con- traction ?—A_ difference in causation, though it may simulate it in result. 107. And if one were to add “localised pressure,” it would exclude such causes as a scar the result of a cut »—Yes, especially if you were to add the words “ chronic localised pressure.” (Judge Ruegg.) 1 strongly object to the word * chronic.” Why exclude trauma if it is an industrial accident ? 108. (Dr. Legge.) I take it you want to have some degree of contraction indicated ; but does your word- ing ‘‘permanent contraction of one or more fingers ”’ help at all, because even if it is bent the slightest bit it will still be contracted. Do you want to have it “contracted beyond a right angle” ’—In the lace trade, as I have suggested, until it reaches what. I have called the third stage, I never saw a case in which it affected a man’s earning capacity; but I suppose it is conceivable, if applied to processes in other trades, even a slight flexion of the finger might affect his earning capacity. 109. But we have to guard, I think, against the possibility, if you are going to allow a claim for com- pensation for the slightest degree of flexion, of an employer examining his workers to see whether any had this condition, and dismissing them before there was incapacity ?—Yes; he might dismiss cases in the early stages if he found out they had it, or he might protect himself by refusing to engage a man whom he found had the early stages of the disease. It would be bound to be open to that. 110. (Judge Kuegg.) Do you think any lace worker suffering from the disease who leaves for any réason, would find difficulty in getting employment again ?— That would have to be taken into consideration. 111. (Dr. Legge.) But if only a severe degree of the condition is scheduled, do you think it is wise to try and define the actual degree of the contraction ?—I think it would be advantageous if it could be done, but Judge Ruegg will, no doubt, know better than I that, if you tried to define the amount of flexion of the finger, it would lead to difficulty in court. (Judge Ruegg.) 1am quite sure experts would differ upon it. 112. (Sir Clifford Allbutt.) Women are not occupied in this way at all, are they ?—No, they never mind lace machines. It is done entirely by men. It is rather a closed trade in Nottingham. 113. It is heavy work ?—I think women could do it, but the men would go on strike if women were brought into it. 114. (Dr. Legge.) You went into the question of the surgical treatment of this condition ?—Yes, 115. Is it favourable ?—It is not favourable. With regard to two persons mentioned in Appendix 1, who had submitted to operation, you will see as regards one, that is No. 5, his right hand was operated on in 1907, and the left hand was operated on in 1909, and when I saw him in the commencement of 1911 the condition was recurring in both hands. The only other individual in this table who was operated on is No. 7, and in his case his little finger had to be amputated. When I was going threugh the notes of A 3](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32182028_0009.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
