Norwich bulletin., 1915-08-26
NO COMPENSATION
 FOR PUTNAM MAN
Alfred AIIard's Claim Dismissed by the Commissioner from Lack of EH- dence.


 Compensation Commissioner James T.. Donohue filed on W.ednesday his decision in the case of Alfred Allard of SS Railroad street, Putnam, vs the New York. New Haven & Hartford railroad, respondent. It was found that the claimant failed to establish his claim, and the claim was there fore dismissed. On Dec. g, 1914. A. lard slipped on the ice at Pascoag R. l.. while lifting a heavy timber with the help of another employe- He received a strain which resulted in an injury to his hip. for which he claimed compensation. stating that he was stin disabled at the hearing on Aug. 17th.
 Memorandum of Decision.
 The memorandum of decision is as follows:
 In order to arrive at a proper un- injury we have at hand. it becomes necessary to know just exactly what a hursa is and what hursitis is
 A bursa is a sac resting over a bony prominence or interposed between muscles and tendons which pass over bony points, and may exist as a nor mai condition or it may be developed as the result of chronic mechanical pressure and irritation. It is a fbrous sac which contains a clear fluid re- semhling synovial fluid. When these sscs became inflamed, they cause pain and disability. Probably the form of bursitfs most commonly known to the laity Is that form of swelling which appears over the knee of women who are doing scruobing work, and it con- sists of a swelling over the knee-cap taking shape similar in form to the knee-cap and is known as house maids knee" The. other most common sites of hursitis are over the great trochanter or the bony prominence of the hip. also over the olecranon pro- cess of the ulna, and these conditions are generally due to the occupation of the individual, so that the bursitis de- velops over 8 part which is exposed to mechanical irritation, and an injury of this character comes on very grad ually, and the onset as a rule can not be traced definitely to any specific time, but it Is a process which covers a considerable period of time.
 In the present case we have simply the history of q sudden strain siven by the claimant alone. We have no history of any continuous irritation to the part. other than that the claim ant states he strained himself on a certain day.
 The claimant further states that he drew it to the attention of two of his fellow worlSmen on the day on which he claims to have received the injury When questioned concerning this point both of these employees who were with him at the time stated that not only were they ignorant regarding his re- ceiving such an injury and that he continued to work for some days aft erwards, but they contradict flatly the statement that he drew their attention to his straining himself upon the day in question
 During the hearing there were pres ent eight witnesses. all of whom were the same job or in the immediate vii for the same company. No one of them knew anything about an injury being received by the claimant at the time nor was the attention of any of them drawn to an injury on the day on which he claims he received an in- jury.
 The first notification which was brought to the attention of the under signed of the injury in question was on June 7th. 1915, by a man who wrote in behalf of said Allard. stating that he had received an injury on Dec. 9th, 1914, which letter was received come six months after the date on which the injury is claimed to have been received. When said letter was received, the question involving the extra territorial force of the Connecki- Ecut act was pending in the supreme Ieourt. and in answering letter above referred to. it was suggested by the Undersigned that there would be no special advantage in hearing the case in question until the case before the courts was decided. as claimants in-