Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-12-11
COMPENSATION
RULINGS ISSUED
Unusual Cases Passed Upon by
the Board and Precedents
Established

The State Compensation Board in an
opinion by Commissioner James w.
Leech has ordered a new hearing in
the compensation claim OF Thomas
Shell, Tower City. against the Phila-
dephia and Reading Coal and Iron
Company, in which the question of
injury on land of an employer used
for path is raised.
The evidence showed an accident
resulting in an injury to have hap
pened, according to Mr.. Leech, be
cause of the condition of the path over
the land owned by and contiguous to
the operations being conducted there
by the defendant company and which
was used generally by its employees
going to and returning from work"
The opinion says There is a dis
tinction between the word premises
as used in the act and the word prop
erty. The claimant was admittedly
on the property of the employer at
the time of the accident, but was he
on his 'premises?' If he was he is en-
titled TO compensation. The word
premises can not be enlarged in its
meaning and application so as to in
clude land and property There is
There is a limit to premises and this
is the only question before us for con-
sideration. The board regrets that
there is not sufficient evidence on this
feature of the case upon which to base
an opinion" The board has upheld
Referee Scott of Philadelphia. in the
awards in cases involving question of
employers business and loss OF a
hand.
Chairman Harry A. Mackey has
made ruling settling the question of
compensation for two injuries suffered
at the same time which will probably
establish precedent in compensa-
tion matters. The opinion was rem
dered in the claim of Thomas Nc
Hugh against the Philadelphia Subur-
ban Gas and Electric Co., the claim
ant having suffered a fracture of bones
or his left foot and injury to his left
eye by a fall at the plant of the COM
pany at Chester
The man has not been able to work
because of the injury to his foot and
Mr.. Mackey rules that the claimant
is entitled to fifty per cent. of wages
earned at the time of the accident
as long as the present permanent dis |
ability shall exist, the said award not
TO run longer, however than 500 !
weeks. II in the meantime, il is held |
the injuries TO the claimant shall so |
yield to medical treatment that his |
present inability to work shall be re- |
duced to partial disability and he at |
tains certain earning capacity. then |
upon petition to the board. this award |
will be accordingly modified"
In regard to the claim for the loss |
of the eye Mr.. Mackey makes an |
award OF fifty per cent. of wages for |
125 weeks ITO cover the permanent |
loss of the claimants left eye. the said |
payments to begin at the termination |
of the payments provided for the dis |
ability to the claimant outside and be-
yond the loss of the said eye"
The employers course in the pro-
ceedings. especially in payment of ex-
pert medical bills in order TO obtain |
full evidence iapiia bo
appeal is commended by the opinion.
An employe injured while on his
way TO reclothe himself after hav-
ing garments damaged while at work
for his employer is entitled to the
protection of the State Compensation
Act. according to an opinion render
ed by Commissioner Scott in the case
of Mahala Belden, of Plainfield, y. j.,
against Austin G. Greer, Holmesburg
The case is an unusual one and creates
track driver and in loading stone
tore his clothing so badly that it
was impossible to continue work. "A
necessity TO reclothe himself was
thereby created that he might pro-
ceed with his work" saws Mr. Scott
TO do this he was obliged to leave
the place where he was working and
to go TO such place as he could pro-
cure overalls. This purpose and act
on the part of the employe was so
incident 10 the business of his en- ,
ployer and so closely connected with
the effectual carrying out of his con-
tract of employment as to be a part
of it .. That he was hurt in
following out what appears to us
10 be in the direct line of advancing
the business of his employer is
enough to throw about him the pro-
lection of section SOL" The employ
er's appeal is dismissed. The board
in opinions by Chairman Harry A.
Mackev has arheld the decisions OF {
Referee Paul W. Houck in two cases
relative to dependency.