Rivero v Pinks

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 16 May 1980
• Docket Number: Inferior Court Appeal No. 15 of 1978
• Date: 16 May 1980

Supreme Court

Moe, C.J.

Inferior Court Appeal No. 15 of 1978

Rivero

and

Pinks

Mr. Denys Barrow, for the appellant

Employer's liability - Employer ordered to pay compensation to employee who was injured on the job — Employer appealed against quantum — Appeal dismissed.

Moe, C.J.

1 The respondent applied to the magistrate for the Belize Judicial District seeking an order that the appellant pay him $879.00 compensation, which the appellant was liable to pay him under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1959, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”). The magistrate found that the respondent was employed by the appellant as a welder at $1.50 per hour. On the 25th April, 1977 during the course of his employment with the appellant, the respondent sustained injuries and the appellant himself took the respondent to the Holden Memorial Hospital where he was admitted. The respondent was discharged on the 2nd May, 1977 and attended clinics until the 18th May, 1977 when he was issued with a final certificate by a doctor. When the respondent presented the certificate to the appellant, he paid him a half week's wage and requested the respondent to see another doctor as he was not satisfied with the doctor's certificate. The respondent received two further half week's wages, but did not see another doctor and the appellant refused to pay compensation.

2 The magistrate found that the appellant was liable to pay compensation and ordered him to pay the amount of $769.50. The appellant appealed on the grounds: - (i) the magistrate took extraneous matters into consideration; (ii) the decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence; (iii) the decision was erroneous in point of law; and (iv) the decision was based on a wrong principle. He however confined himself to two submissions:- firstly, that the magistrate erred in holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation, since the respondent refused to subject himself to medical examination at the request of the appellant, and secondly, that the medical certificate is inconsistent with the definition of incapacity as contained in section 2 of the Ordinance.

3 It was contended that since the workman was receiving payments when the appellant requested the medical examination, section 19 of the Ordinance applies. That section provides:–

“Any workman receiving periodic payments under the Ordinance shall, if so required by the employer, from the time to time but at reasonable intervals, submit himself for examination by a medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer and the provisions of section eighteen shall apply to such examination.”

4 The respondent was in receipt of payments amounting to 50% of his wages. Although it is not clear from the record whether the payments were made at regular pay intervals, the respondent was being paid in respect of the rights conferred upon him by the Ordinance, or in other words because of the appellant's liability under the Ordinance. Section 19 of the Ordinance is therefore applicable.

5 It is then laid down in section 18(4), (which provision applies to examinations requested under section 19) as follows: S. 18(4) “If the workman refuses or willfully neglects to submit...