The broad ax., 1916-09-02

that he should return to the doctor IL
the hand gave him any further trou-
BILE. He did not appreciate, and the
evidence does not show, that he had
been advised of the danger that lurked
in such q wound. The fact that he
had been discharged from the doctors
care as able to continue his work with
his hand still bandaged and the wound
not entirely healed tended to dispel
any apprehension of danger he might
otherwise have felt However, as soon
as the arm began to pain he sought a
physician and was Immediately sent
to a hospital. Under these circum-
stances we are of the opinion that the
first ground of objection must fall.
The other objection to the claim is
founded upon that provision OF the
Compensation Law contained in Sec
tion 62, Subsection 6, of Chapter 800,
Acts of 1914, which defines injury"
and personal injury" for which COM
pensation is payable as meaning "only
accidental injury arising out Of and in
the course of employment, and such
disease or infection as may naturally
and unavoidably result therefrom."
On this branch of the case the evil
dence establishes the fact that the in
lection resulted from the injury to the
hand. In the attending physicians
| report" filed in the case, DR.. Willard
L. Raemore, in describing the nature
and extent of the claimants injuries,
says he has "a very severe cellulitis
of hand, forearm and half way be-
tween elbow and shoulder (left), ne
cessitating anaesthetizing patient
twice, March 90 and April 2, and open
ing the extremity by free incision
from shoulder to the hand.
He has as a point of infection the
small abrasion on the middle knuckle.
of the left hand middle finger, which
he sustained November 3d." In the
same doctors testimony he says he
saw the claimant as soon as he was
brought to the hospital. His arm was
swollen and very red to his elbow and
streaks of lymphangitis were notice
able On looking for the portal of in
lection the opening over the knuckle
was the only point found and from it
could be seen red streaks running up
the arm. This opening was very
small, perhaps the size of a pinhead.
1t showed there had been consider
able abrasion of the skin there which
had healed with the exception of this
small point, and it was undoubtedly
deep enough to admit the entrance of
a germ, and the bloodpoisoning re-
suited from that.
Other physicians who testified in
the case, while admitting that break
in the surface of the skin, though it
may be a mere pin scratch, is suff-
cient for the entrance of the organism
of infection, expressed the opinion,
based on the examination Of the claim
ants arm, that there was no connec-
ton between the infected hand and
arm of the claimant and the injury
which he received to his knuckle. But
they were unable to account in any
other way for the infection which they
found, and in the absence of any other
explanation we must accept the clear
and positive testimony of DR.. Rae
more that the injury which the claim
ant received to his knuckle was the
seat of the subsequent infection of the
arm and that the infection resulted
therefrom.
The next inquiry, then, is, did this
infection naturally and unavoidably"
result from the accidental injury to
the hand?
In the case of Pollock y. The Con-
solidation Coal Company, Claim No.
2095, the same question arose as to
the septicemia which caused the death
of the husband of the claimant in that
case. We held there that in cases in
volving certain acute infections which
are due to pus-producing organisms
such as abscess, cellulitis, erysipelas,
septicemia, etc, where it was shown
that the infection resulted from and
accidental injury, the claimant had
established a prima facie case that
the infection naturally and unavoid-
ably resulted therefrom. The reasons
for so holding are set forth in an
opinion filed in that case and are ap-
plicable here, but they need not be re-
peated at length. Acute infections re-
sulting from accidental injuries are of
frequent occurrence, and physicians
appearing before this Commission
have invariably testified that it is i'm
possible to say that such an infection
could or could not have been avoided
in any particular case. And we can
MT nopnaiva that anv reliable evidence