Dissanayake, Gunasekara v Heinemann Electric Pty Ltd
[2012] VCC 1532
•19 October 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CIVIL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION
SERIOUS INJURY DIVISION
Case No. CI-11-05379
| GUNASEKARA DISSANAYAKE | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| HEINEMANN ELECTRIC PTY LTD | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE O'NEILL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 and 12 October 2012 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 October 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Dissanayake, Gunasekara v Heinemann Electric Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VCC 1532 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
SUBJECT – ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
CATCHWORDS – Several incidents giving rise to low-back injury – underlying degenerative change in lumbar spine – whether consequences “very considerable”
LEGISLATION CITED – Accident Compensation Act 1985, s134AB
JUDGMENT – Leave to the plaintiff to bring proceedings at common law.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr G A Worth | Shine Lawyers Limited |
| For the Defendant | Mr J L Batten | Thomsons Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Preliminary
1 The plaintiff alleges he suffered injury to his lower spine over the course of his employment with the defendant, in particular on a number of occasions over the period from 2006 to 2008. He claims to suffer a range of consequences, including to his domestic, recreational and social life. His employment was terminated in March 2010. He has attempted to return to employment since, but claims the injury to his lower spine is such that he has little present work capacity.
2 This is an application for leave to bring proceedings pursuant to s134AB(16)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the Act”) for injury suffered in the course of the plaintiff’s employment from October 1999 until March 2010, and in particular, on 9 August 2006, 18 September 2007 and 12 September 2008. The body function said to be lost or impaired is the lumbar spine.
3 The application is thus brought under subsection (a) of the definition of “serious injury” contained in s134AB(37) of the Act and leave is sought in respect of pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity.
4 The plaintiff was the only witness called to give evidence and be cross-examined. In addition, affidavits of the plaintiff, his wife and nephew, medical reports, claim forms, radiological reports and other documents were tendered into evidence. I have read all the tendered material.
5 I shall not refer to all of this material in the course of this judgment, but those reports, affidavits and opinions which appear to me to be of most relevance in determining the issues in dispute.
6 The statutory scheme set forth in the Act which prescribes and regulates applications of this nature is well known, and it is unnecessary for me to revisit the various relevant sections.
Relevant Background
7 The plaintiff was born in 1963 and is currently forty-eight years of age. He is married with three young children. He was born in Sri Lanka and after schooling, completed four years of motor mechanic studies and then worked in that area. He came to Australia in 1992. At the time, he had no English and little family support.
8 He undertook a range of manual jobs from the time he came to Australia and then commenced working with the defendant in November 1996. He worked as an assembler and fitter, making large industrial electrical switchboards. He described the work as very physical, requiring lifting of considerable weights and constant standing, forceful reaching and repetitive lifting and twisting. He further said there were time pressures imposed by his employer to ensure the construction of the switchboards was done quickly.[1]
[1]See description of work duties – Plaintiff’s Court Book (“PCB”) 48
9 Prior to 2006, he enjoyed a range of activities with his family and within the Sinhalese community. His children were young, and he enjoyed playing a range of recreational and sporting activities with them, including cricket and soccer. With his wife, he attended cultural festivities, and would join with friends to celebrate sports carnivals and a range of other functions. He enjoyed keeping a vegetable garden and did some of the family’s cooking. He maintained the garden, including mowing the lawns. He enjoyed normal family activities, and prior to 2006, was in good health. In particular, he had suffered no injury to his lumbar spine.
The Injury and its Consequences
10 On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Worth said the plaintiff brought his application on the basis of heavy repetitive work over the course of his employment with the defendant between 1999 and 2010. Specifically he said there were three incidents of lifting which occurred on 9 August 2006, 18 September 2007 and, particularly, on 12 September 2008. He said the last incident was the most significant.
11 On 9 August 2006, the plaintiff experienced pain in his lower spine after repeated heavy lifting and bending. He went to see the work practitioner, Dr Panna, and was off work for a short period. He then consulted a general practitioner, Dr Mendis, who has remained his general practitioner to the present, for treatment of his injuries. After his return to work on the same duties, he said that he experienced ongoing symptoms on occasions.
12 On 18 September 2007, he again suffered an increase of pain to his lower spine while performing heavy lifting duties at work. He went to see Dr Mendis the next day and was again off work for a short period of time. He returned to work on his former full-time duties. He said he continued to experience pain in his lower back from time to time.
13 According to the report of Dr Mendis,[2] the pain arising from each of these incidents in 2006 and 2007 subsided over about three weeks. In cross-examination, the plaintiff accepted that after the initial first episode of treatment with his general practitioner, that after these first two incidents, he did not seek any treatment.
[2]PCB 115
14 On 12 September 2008, he suffered a significant increase in his lower back pain while he was lifting a heavy switchboard onto a workbench. He continued to work the rest of that day despite experiencing significant pain in his lower spine. Several days later, he saw Dr Mendis. He was prescribed medication for pain relief and an anti-inflammatory. An x-ray was undertaken on 15 September 2008, and a CT scan on 17 September 2008.[3] The CT scan showed:
“L4/5 disc space – there is mild broad based disc bulging causing mild impingement of thecal sac without evidence of nerve root compromise. Mild bilateral facet joint osteoarthritis.
L5/S1 disc space – there is mild broad based disc bulging combined with a prominent osteophyte formation, resulting in osteophyte-disc complex formation without evidence of nerve root compromise. Bilateral mild facet joint osteoarthritis.
Comment – no evidence of canal stenosis or disc herniation. No evidence of nerve root compromise. Bilateral multilevel mild facet joint osteoarthritis.”[4]
[3]PCB 110-111
[4]PCB 111
15 The plaintiff made Workcover claims in respect of each of the three incidents, which claims were accepted by the Workcover insurer.
16 In October 2008, the plaintiff went to Mr Mark Eibl, physiotherapist, who treated him over a period until funding by the WorkCover insurer was ceased.
17 In March 2010, the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant was terminated. This related to factors independent of the plaintiff’s injury.
18 From September 2008 until March 2010, the plaintiff remained working for the defendant on a full-time basis, but on light or restricted duties. He described the duties as including fixing doors and other lighter tasks. He had time off from employment on occasions because of his lower back pain. Over this period, he remained under the care of Dr Mendis and his treatment was conservative, involving the prescription of medication, and physiotherapy.
19 In August 2009, the plaintiff was referred by Dr Mendis to Mr Peter Wilde, orthopaedic surgeon, for assessment. Mr Wilde obtained a history of heavy physical work over the years with prolonged standing, reaching above shoulder height and frequent twisting, turning and bending. At the time, the plaintiff complained that his symptoms were constant mechanical lower back pain, with referred pain into his buttocks. He said that his activities of daily living were restricted and that he was able to work only on light duties. According to Mr Wilde, the plaintiff had aggravated pre-existing degenerative lumbar spondylosis for which there was no easy solution. He suggested Pilates and hydrotherapy. He said it would be better if the plaintiff were re-trained in sedentary employment. He considered the plaintiff was not fit to return to his full-time duties or any other forms of physical or manual work. He said:
“In my opinion Mr Dissanayake possesses the physical capacity for light duties and sedentary employment. Examples of appropriate work would be seated process line worker, component assembly, light retail, security work and office work.”[5]
[5]PCB 123
20 The plaintiff did not return to see Mr Wilde beyond that first occasion, and has not sought nor been referred for treatment from any other specialist since. Up until the time his employment was terminated, the plaintiff was certified by Dr Mendis as being fit for full time restricted duties. In fact, he remained certified for those duties until January 2012 with the restriction “no repetitive bending, no lifting more than 5 kilograms”.[6]
[6]See Certificates of Capacity DCB 75-121
21 According to his affidavits, the plaintiff says that he has continued to suffer pain, particularly in his lumbar spine. There is some lesser pain in his neck. The pain is referred from his lumbar spine into his buttocks and legs. It increases depending upon the physical activity upon which he is involved. He is restricted in walking for prolonged distances, sitting in a car for any lengthy period of time and any activities which require bending, carrying, lifting, pushing, pulling and climbing. He says his capacity for the activities of daily living, in particular, personal hygiene, are affected. He currently takes Voltaren tablets and Panadeine. He says he has trouble sleeping and wakes regularly during the night. As a result, he feels tired during the day. His personal relationship with his wife is affected. He is unable to relate to his children as he would wish. His children are young and enjoy playing a range of sports, including cricket, soccer, bicycle riding and the like. He says that his domestic activities are considerably affected. He finds it difficult to vacuum or any other activity which requires bending and pushing. He used to enjoy a vegetable garden, but is no longer able to do the gardening, or help with the heavier domestic chores. He does assist his wife with the shopping, but cannot carry the heavier bags.
22 He says his previous enjoyment of social and cultural activities within the Sinhalese community is restricted. He is no longer able to enjoy his sporting activities on these occasions and now rarely goes to social functions. He used to enjoy cooking, but now is restricted. A friend comes to mow the lawn.
23 Since he was terminated from employment with the defendant in March 2010, the plaintiff has attempted a return to work on a number of occasions. In 2010, for approximately two days, he worked with a friend as a courier. He found it difficult, particularly when he was required to climb steps and carry boxes. The work was unpaid and lasted about two days.
24 In 2011, he worked for a short time for a company “Supply Pack Assembly” over a period of about three weeks. He was able to work at home assembling pieces of equipment with nuts and bolts using a screwdriver. While the work was light, it required pressure and forceful movements of his arms, and he was required to stop because of back pain.
25 In 2012, because of his family’s financial position, his wife found work in delivering catalogues in residential areas. She would collect the catalogues from a distribution centre, and then deliver them in various areas. He has assisted his wife in this activity on two or three days per week, over several hours. The work is unpaid, and he says he has difficulties with increased lower back pain.
26 In April 2012, he obtained work as a delivery driver for a Chinese restaurant, but lasted only a day or two. He had difficulty climbing the stairs to the second floor of the building. Also, in 2012, he assisted his nephew for a short period packing catalogues and newspapers for delivery. He found the lifting and carrying of these items difficult.
27 At the present time, he is in receipt of Centrelink payments. Since retrenchment, he has attended a number of job agencies. He is required to apply for jobs as part of his Centrelink benefit. He was registered with a job agency in Lonsdale Street, Dandenong, over a period of about eight weeks. He said in evidence that he had made enquiries of other job agencies. He attended Workforce in Dandenong on about four or five occasions. He has undertaken a vocational assessment with Ipar Pty Ltd. They have suggested a number of jobs, including product assembler (light items), packer (light items), baking factory worker, delivery driver (pizza or other light items).[7] He has also attended a job agency, Macs Employment in Cranbourne on a number of occasions. In addition, he says he has made investigations via the internet for employment and has contacted a number of companies. He said the companies he has contacted, and the various agencies, have told him the prospects of obtaining employment are not good given his back condition, and the work restrictions that imposes.
[7]DCB 122
Medical Opinions
28 According to Dr Mendis, the general practitioner, he considered the symptoms arising from the first two incidents have each subsided after about three weeks.[8]
[8]PCB 115
29 The plaintiff was examined by Dr Helen Sutcliffe, occupational physician, on a number of occasions in 2011 and 2012. She also was of the view the plaintiff had suffered an aggravation of lumbar spondylosis as a result of “heavy manual handling performed in his occupation”.[9] She said he had no capacity for his pre-injury employment, and although he had some capacity for restricted duties, she said:
“Thus I believe his capacity for suitable employment is restricted to such an extent that he could not perform work in a reliable, efficient or productive manner to the satisfaction of an employer.
Thus, having had the trials of employment and reassessing his capacity for employment I believe that he has no capacity for suitable or alternate employment and I believe this will continue into the foreseeable future.
…
I also now believe that he has no capacity for any employment taking into account his training, education and experience, the symptoms he develops following activity and his limited English literacy.”[10]
[9]PCB 101
[10]PCB 109L
30 The plaintiff was examined on a number of occasions by Mr Russell Miller, orthopaedic surgeon, in 2011 and 2012. In relation to the causation of his symptoms Mr Miller said:
“It is likely that his work in general and the work events outlined above have contributed to the evolution of the spinal disease and most particularly the event of September 2008. In my opinion that effect persists.”[11]
[11]PCB 88
31 He also was of the view the plaintiff had aggravated the underlying degenerative disease. As to his work capacity, Mr Miller said:
“He is not fit for pre-injury duties. He has failed attempts to return to work undertaking work as a courier and parts assembler as outlined earlier in this report. He will have difficulty with work that involves repetitive bending, repetitive lifting and lifting of weights of more than 5 kg. He will have a requirement to shift his posture on a regular basis.
I note he has quite limited language skills and a poor grasp of the English language and a return to work will be problematic in this case. The restrictions are permanent and work related.”[12]
[12]PCB 109E
32 The plaintiff was examined on behalf of the defendant by Dr Philip Mutton in 2009. He said that the plaintiff’s lower spinal condition arose in the course of his employment. He said there was no suggestion of functional overlay or exaggeration. He said the plaintiff had aggravated pre-existing facet joint osteoarthritis. He was not fit for his previous unrestricted duties and required permanent lifting restriction of 10 kilograms. He said the prognosis was fair and that the radiology showed changes not unexpected in a man of his years. However, he said the changes could well account for the plaintiff’s symptom presentation. He said the plaintiff was suitable for the restricted duties in which he worked at the defendant until March 2010.
33 The plaintiff was examined by Mr Brendan Dooley, orthopaedic surgeon, on behalf of the defendant in October 2010. He said the history and clinical findings were consistent with a work related injury to the lower back being an aggravation of disc degenerative changes in the lower two lumbosacral intervertebral discs and with occasional referred pain into the right calf, but without true radiculopathy.
34 Dr Chris Baker, occupational physician, examined the plaintiff in November 2010 and October 2011. He, like many other doctors, considered the plaintiff had aggravated pre-existing asymptomatic degenerative changes in his lumbar spine and suffered mechanical low back pain as a result. He said the plaintiff had a capacity for restricted duties, but not his pre-injury duties. He said the plaintiff could not undertake heavy or repetitive work, and would need rest breaks with any new work. He said there was no gross exaggeration or abnormal illness behaviour. He said the plaintiff’s condition was work related because of the lifting, bending and twisting he was required to perform. He considered the work component was still contributing to his symptoms in 2011. He said:
“I would consider that noting he was retrenched when the company closed and has limited skills, with lack of use of English, that he would have difficulty finding employment. However, there is no reason why he should not be employed undertaking similar duties if he did not have the problems of his back, which is symptomatic.”[13]
[13]DCB 53
35 Dr Geoffrey Graham, occupational physician, examined the plaintiff in November 2011 on behalf of the insurer. He said the plaintiff’s degenerative changes seen on CT scan were long standing and constitutional. He said that the plaintiff was capable of doing his pre-injury duties if they were available. He is the only doctor to conclude the plaintiff is capable of his pre-injury duties. Given the plaintiff’s extensive complaints of pain, the medication he is on and most importantly the views of all of the other doctors, I am satisfied the plaintiff has no capacity for pre-injury duties. I reject the opinion of Dr Graham.
36 Finally, the plaintiff was examined by Mr Michael Shannon, orthopaedic surgeon, in September 2011. He also said the plaintiff had aggravated pre‑existing degenerative changes in the two lower discs and the facet joints of the lumbar spine. He said the plaintiff suffered mechanical back pain which limited a range of activities including prolonged and repetitive bending and lifting. He said the plaintiff was capable of light bench work with restrictions, providing he could take regular breaks and change his posture. He considered that the work component was still contributing to the plaintiff’s presentation. In a report of December 2011, the various positions suggested by a vocational assessment company, including product assembler, packer, baking factory worker and delivery driver, were suitable, although he said the plaintiff would require a rather sympathetic employer. He said working as a baker was probably not suitable. The plaintiff could work as a delivery driver providing he was travelling short distances. Mr Shannon re-examined the plaintiff in October 2012 and indicated his opinion had not changed.
37 There were vocational reports tendered into evidence. I shall not refer to them in detail. I prefer the opinion of the various medical practitioners in determining whether the plaintiff has a work capacity. In my view, the purpose of the vocational reports is to identify potential areas of employment, but not to comment upon whether the plaintiff had the capacity to undertake that work.
Conclusions from the Medical Opinions
38 There is almost complete uniformity amongst the medical opinions that the plaintiff suffered an aggravation of underlying degenerative disease at the L4‑5 and L5-S1 levels of his lumbar spine. Some of the opinions indicate there is also facet joint arthritis. I accept the submission of Mr Batten for the defendant that these changes are likely to be long term, and do not represent the trauma of any particular work incident. I note, however, that prior to 2006, the plaintiff was asymptomatic and while it might be said that the radiological changes are not atypical for someone of his age, with his manual work background, nonetheless I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s current presentation is related to his work duties. Those duties aggravated the underlying degeneration and made it symptomatic. I am further satisfied from the bulk of the medical evidence that the plaintiff has no capacity for his pre‑injury duties.
39 I was impressed by the opinions of Mr Miller on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr Shannon on behalf of defendant. In essence, there is little difference between the two. Both indicate the plaintiff has a capacity for restricted light employment duties. Each say that there are restrictions to be imposed on employment, including as to the weights he is able to lift, and any work involving repetitive twisting and bending. Mr Miller considered there ought be a restriction of 5 kilograms in relation to lifting of weights and that the plaintiff should be able to shift his posture on a regular basis. He noted that a return to work would be problematic particularly given the plaintiff’s lack of language skills. Likewise, Mr Shannon said that while the plaintiff could undertake some work, it could not involve prolonged or repetitive bending or heavy lifting. The plaintiff would require an employer who was prepared to allow him to change his posture regularly. He said a number of the jobs which had been suggested were not appropriate. I accept the opinions of each of these practitioners as to the plaintiff’s work capacity.
Credibility of the Plaintiff
40 Mr Batten suggested I should have significant reservations about the credibility of the plaintiff for the following reasons:
·There was no reference in the plaintiff’s first affidavit to a number of attempted returns to work. These were only before the Court in the second affidavit.
·Mr Batten submitted that the plaintiff was evasive in cross-examination, particularly in relation to his attempts at re-employment.
·The plaintiff was not frank about the job agencies which he had attended in order to obtain employment and there was no real detail as to those agencies, nor when he attended.
·According to the report of the vocational agency, Ipar Pty Ltd, of October 2011, the plaintiff was not motivated to return to work and highly injury focussed.[14]
·He had an unexercised residual capacity for employment, and was not making a full and frank attempt to return to the workforce.
[14]DCB 152
41 I had the opportunity to observe the plaintiff in the course of his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Communication was not straightforward, given his evidence was through an interpreter. However, contrary to the submissions of Mr Batten, I found the plaintiff a reasonably frank and honest witness. On a number of occasions he made concessions which I would expect of an honest witness. There were no substantial credit issues put to the plaintiff. By and large, the medical practitioners found him to be providing a history and explanation of his injury in a manner which was neither exaggerated nor functional.
42 Further, I have been impressed by the attempts by the plaintiff to obtain employment since termination in March 2010. He has tried a number of jobs, including pizza delivery, work from home, and assisting his wife with pamphlet deliveries. I accept he was unable to continue with these jobs because of the pain and restriction in his lower spine, and not because he was making a disingenuous attempt to work.
43 All in all, I accept the evidence of the plaintiff as to the pain and restriction that his lumbar spinal injury has placed upon him. I accept his complaints of restriction in his affidavits, and in the histories provided to the medical practitioners.
Conclusions
44 The plaintiff brings this application on the basis that his spinal injury occurred as a result of his heavy work duties with the defendant over the years from 1999.
45 On behalf of the defendant, Mr Batten argues that the first matter to be determined is to identify the injury said to have been sustained. While acknowledging the plaintiff had suffered three incidents in the course of his work, he said each was transitory and of little significance. In particular, it was clear form the general practitioner’s report that the plaintiff had recovered from the first and second incidents within a matter of weeks. Mr Batten emphasised that the presentation on radiology was consistent with the plaintiff’s degenerative spine, and unrelated to any work incident. He said that if the plaintiff suffered pain and limitation at the present time, it was related to that underlying condition, and not to any injury in the workplace.
46 I accept Mr Batten’s submission that the starting point is to identify the injury which the plaintiff suffered. I accept the opinion of most of the practitioners that he had an underlying degenerative process in his lower spine, and that the plaintiff’s heavy lifting over a number of years aggravated that condition, and made it symptomatic. In my view, the plaintiff’s current presentation is as a result of his heavy work over the years, and including the three incidents. It is clear that the incidents of 2006 and 2007 were relatively minor. The plaintiff, despite his complaints of ongoing pain, appears to have made a reasonable recovery reflected in the fact that he kept working on normal duties and did not attend his general practitioner between the incidents and before the incident of 2008.
47 The next step in the process, in my view, is to identify whether the injury suffered arose in compensable circumstances. That is, whether the incident was caused or contributed to by the plaintiff’s employment. In my view, it is a moot point as to whether the three incidents of 2006, 2007 and 2008 are responsible for the plaintiff’s current presentation, or whether in the alternative it is those incidents and heavy lifting over the years from 1999. The bulk of the medical opinion is to the effect that it is the plaintiff’s heavy duties over the time of his employment which is responsible for his injury, pain and restriction. I accept those opinions.
48 If I am wrong in that view, then it is clear that the incident of 12 September 2008, when the plaintiff was lifting a large switchboard onto a bench, is the most substantial of the workplace incidents. As a result, he sought treatment from his general practitioner, was away from work for a short period, and on his return was only able to work in restricted duties. The bulk of his medical treatment ensued from that date.
49 The next matter to determine is whether the consequences which have arisen as a result of the injury reach the “very considerable” level as to pain and suffering. As stated, I found the plaintiff a reliable and honest witness. I accept that he suffers ongoing pain in his lower back, with referred pain into his legs. While the changes on radiology are modest, I nonetheless accept that he is restricted in a range of areas as he has described. I accept that his sleep is affected as well as his personal relationship with his wife. I accept that he is restricted in a range of ways, in particular his enjoyment of activities with his children. The plaintiff has an impressive work history, and has worked in manual heavy work since coming to Australia. I accept his claim that his loss of employment has led to financial difficulties. While the plaintiff’s treatment has not been extensive - he attended a treating orthopaedic surgeon on only one occasion, this is more a reflection of the fact that surgery has little to offer. The plaintiff has undertaken physiotherapy, and takes a range of medication to the present time. I am satisfied that his complaints of pain have an organic basis. In my view there is little, if any, psychological component involved.
50 For all of these reasons, I am satisfied the plaintiff reaches the required statutory level in respect of pain and suffering.
51 The situation in relation to economic loss is somewhat more difficult. The plaintiff was certified as fit for restricted duties by his general practitioner as at early 2012. As stated, I accept the opinions of Mr Shannon and Mr Miller that he does have a capacity for restricted duties with limitations as to his lifting, bending, twisting and the like. Mr Shannon said the plaintiff would require a sympathetic employer. In my view, the plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to return to work within the restrictions which have been placed upon him. Were that the end of the matter, it could be said the plaintiff had a capacity for restricted duties on a full time basis. However, the definition of suitable employment as contained in s5 of the Act requires the Court to have regard to a range of factors when assessing employment capacity. Those factors include:
·the nature of the worker’s incapacity
·the nature of the worker’s pre-injury employment
·the worker’s age, education, skills and work experience.
52 These criteria are to be taken into account regardless of whether any work is actually available.
53 In this regard I note the plaintiff has spent all of his working life in Australia in manual heavy employment. He has very limited English. I accept his evidence that he has attempted to obtain employment on a number of occasions, but has been told that with his work injury, employment is not available.
54 When these matters contained in the definition of “suitable employment” are factored into the plaintiff’s work capacity equation, in my view he has very little work capacity. I am not able to say with precision the percentage reduction in his pre-injury work capacity, save to say that it is greater than 40 per cent, and significantly so.
55 In all these circumstances, the plaintiff’s claim in relation to economic loss succeeds.
56 I propose to grant leave to the plaintiff to bring proceedings at common law in respect of both pain and suffering and loss of earnings. I shall make consequent orders.
- - -
0
0
0