Norwich bulletin., 1914-06-29
H. E. HENkIN GIVEN
 COMPENSATION AWARD.
Commissioner Donohue Decides He is
 Entitled to Payment for Injuries.

An award in the case of Harry E. Henkin vs the Max Gordon Corp. has been filed in the superior court by Compensation Commissioner James J. Donohue. The claimant appeared at the hearing in person and was ar companied by his uncle Israel Henkin, R. c. Dickenson, attorney for the Travellers Insurance Company of Hart fodr, pr. Patrick Cassidy, Samuel Goldberk, vice president of the Max Gordon and Son Corp, and Harry NJ Land, secretary of the corporation represented the respondent. A hearing or tse matter was held on June 22 be- fore Commissioner Donohue. Both parties had accepted the provisions of the workmen's compensation act, the respondent having proven their sol Vency by taking out insurance with the Travellers Insurance company of Hart ford Both parties agreed that the av- craze weekly wage of the claimant was s10.50 per week while he was in the employ of the corporation.
 Harry E. Henkin, the claimant was the first witness called and he told of receiving an injury about three and half weeks previous to the time of his operation for hernia which was per- formed at the Backus hospital on April 21. The injury occurred while he was doing some heavy lifting in the employ of the corporation.
 The claimant also testified that on the date on which he was injured he complained of having strained him. self to Harry M. Land who Is the sec retary of the corporation, and was told by MT. Land to take a rest as the lifting was too heavy.
 Samuel Goldberg, the vice president testified that although he did not know the date on which Henkin was iniur- ed, he noticed that Henkin was not doing the same work which he had n Q ct +LA Al and commented upon it to the mem bers of the firm.
 Dr. Patrick J. Cassidy told of op- erating upon the claimant for hernia at the Backus hospital on April 21 this year, and said that while there were conditions which might have ex- isted previous to the time of the in jury, there was no doubt that a recent protusion had taken place.
 The award is to the effect that Harry b. Henkin be paid the sum of s525 per week by the respondent begin the period of his incapacity together with any medical, surgical and hospit- al services which were received by him during the 30 days following May 3, 1914.
 Commissioner Donohue makes this comment in his finding:
 While 1t Is claimed by the respond- ent that the condition was one of pre-eXlStlng disease, rather than an entirely new condition, we have no right to deny man his compensa- ton on account of any hereditary ten dency, which may or may not have ex- lsted In certain individual and Which, at best, is something more or less speculative on our part for who can be said to be perfectly sound in3 dlVluual' or where can you find such specimen of humanity
 In blood poisoning rausa ard affart are never co-incident, still no one de- nles the fact that blood poisoning is a personal injury. In the vast ma Jorlty Of medical ailments, and a great many surgical conditions. the cause antedates (by period of time more or less veriable) the resulting disahil- lty or personal injury. difference In extent or lapse of time between cause and effect producing disability or personal Injury should have no bearing on the payment of amount or refusal of compensa tion. so long as the Tact is established that there was casual relation or connection be- tween the injury and the occupation out of which it arose.
 whether 1t was case of blood poi sohihg With an interval between cause ana enect of three days, or a case of hernia with an interval of three weeks should have no material bearing so Tar as the refusal of compensation is concerned.
 In the state of Connecticut. under our statute. in Section I of Part E. there IS nothing in the law which makes a personal injury dependent upon an accident: in fact personal in Jury causing disability may arise from causes quite other than accident In Massachusetts, a man who developed pneumonia from getting into the water III lhe course of his employment was aloWed compensation. In this in- stance you would not consider it an accident in the strict sense of the word. A number of instances of dis aolllty or personal injury might be cited In which the clause could not be altrlputed to an accident. It is very evident that the conclusion wbicb should be drawn should depend upon the Tact that the employment was the injury. " '''0