Company must pay $46,000 for job injuries

THE Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to order a company, Super Industrial Services Limited to pay one of its employees the sum of $46,000 for injuries he sustained while on the job. The appeal by the company raised one issue for the court to handle. It was whether on the evidence led before the Commissioner, Enrico Penco, had proven on a balance of probability that the accident which occurred while he was at work, caused the injury he suffered. The facts of the matter were that while Penco was at work as a bagger operating a machine at the company’s work place, on November 26, 1993, he struck his head on a steel beam so violently, that his safety helmet cracked and he fell to the ground where he felt dizzy and “saw stars.”

His evidence was that he resumed work one week after the accident, but the pains which he experienced in his head and to the back of both eyes, at the time of the accident, intensified resulting in his being unable to work after the first week in December. As a result of the severe pains, he went to the San Fernando General Hospital where he was warded and underwent an emergncy operation the following day for the removal of the lens from his right eye. His pains continued until September 1994 when he was again operated upon — this time, for the removal of the lens in the left eye, at which time the pains subsided.

The Commissioner found the company liable and ordered it to pay to Penco the sum of $46,000 as compensation for the 60 percent partial disability of the worker. But the company appealed the decision on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence on which the Commissioner could find that the loss of the lenses sustained by Penco was as a result of the accident. But after hearing the expert medical evidence, by different doctors, the Court of Appeal in a judgment on January 26 delivered by Justice Wendell Kangaloo and supported by the Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Justice Rolston, the Court found that the conclusion of the Commissioner was reasonable. Justice Kangaloo found there was no merit in the ground of appeal. In the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed with costs.