Norwich bulletin., 1916-01-06

of the Brown Cotton Gin Co. of thai
city, who brought claim for further
compensation. alleging that there was
permanent injury
The commissioner denies the claim
for further compensation, but finds
that the claimant is entitled to COM
pensation at the rate of IS weekly UT
to December 10. 1915. having been, in
jured on May Path.
It was agreed that the average
weekly wages of the claimant were
not in excess of ten dollars.
While in the employ of the Brown
Cotton Gin company at their plant in
New London on the oath day Of May,
1915, CLAIMANT sustained a personal
injury arising out of and in the
course of his employment, said in
jury not being caused by any wilful or
serious misconduct on his part nor by
his intoxication. From the evidence it
appears that Cabel's clothing became
caught in some revolving shafting ana
that he prevented himself from being
whirled around the shafting by
bracing himself with his arms (ae-
cording to the testimony of the at
tending physician and while so doing
Cabel had his clothing torn off from
his waist up.
The injuries received consisted of
bruised muscles of both arms and the
left side. also small cut on the
head.
On June 18th, 1915, voluntary
agreement was entered into by en-
ployed and employee, which was in all
respects in compliance with the re-
Quirements of the act. and said agree
ment was approved by the commits
sioner for the Second Congressional
district. BY the trims of said agree
mept, CLAIMANT was to receive COM
pensation during disability at the rate
of five dollars weekly, together with
h..
services provided in Section of the
act; the CLAIMANT requested that all
compensation payments be withheld
until he was able to return to work.
but it is found that at the time of
the first hearing October 10th. 1870,
twelve weeks compensation. amount
ing to sixty dollars had been paid to
August 10Th, 1915. and that seven
weeks and two days compensation
was due on said October 16. 1915.
Practically all the facts in this case
are agreed to and the question to be
decided is whether the claimant at
present is suffering from any disa-
bility which was caused by the injury
which he received on said May gath,
1915, or which can be traced to that
injury.
From the testimony given by the
attending physicians, DR.. w. L. Doug
lass of New London, and the other
J6O&Cdt WITNESSES 1t Is IOunQ Inat at
the time of the second hearing De-
cember 18th, 1879, the claimant was
suffering from no DISABILITY resulting
rom the injury received on the date
N question.
Memorandum of Decision.
In his memorandum of decision
Commissioner Donohue says:
In the present case practically all
he facts are agreed to as stated in
he finding and award, and the sole
question to be decided is: Is there
any present disability, and. i so. is
It due to the Injury received by the
claimant on May oath, 1915? In
order to arrive at an intelligent idea
# the character of the injury, it
might be well to consider the testi-
nony Of the first witness, who was
he first person to render aid to Mr.
Cabei, and this witness testified that
ne found the muscles of both arms
bruised and the left side, and that he
also saw small cut on his head, and
hat Mr.. Cabel was able to walk and
ak and was not unconscious.
External Injuries.
According to the testimony of the
attending physician, when he arrived
1t the scene of the accident there he
ound Cabel sitting down, that his
INJURIES were mostly bruises, that he
had circular contusions on his up
Der arms and some others lower
Town. that the left side of his chest
vas bruised, and there was a cut or
'ruise on his head which he did not
h1nk important. He further stat
ID that the mans injuries were ex-
ernal bruises, not deep; muscles were
ather strained, but no bones were
'roken; he found no positive signs of
Internal injuries. no confusion of his
mind, no traGmatic injury to his head,
Ind the patient was conscious all the
tme; that he attended him off and
m for about four months, and saw
Tim every two or three days imne-
llately Following the injury. and that
here was no confusion of ideas and
10 delirium, and that his Temperature
an normal all the time; that he
reated him mostly for shock, and
ried to get him up and around and
'ack to work
Became HypochondriacaI.
From the testimony of DR.. Douglass
would appear that CabeI has be-
ome hypochondriacal; in other
words, by thinking almost continually
tpout the injury which he received
even though it was not of a serious
lature), and allowing himself to
nagnifed by his imaginations.
From the. testimony of DR.. Doug
ass, it also appears that about three
months after the injury a heart weak
less showed up. in the claimant. but
ie did not connect 1t in any way with
he inquiry.
Mr.. Douglass testimony at the first
rearing and at the second hearing did
lot entirely coincide and he gave as
he reason the lapse of time between
ne two hearings ana q better oppor-
unity AFFORDED him to follow the his
DRY OF the case more closely and to
make deeper study of it and in SO
long he felt better qualified to tes-
1fy as to the real character of the
disability, and he had come to the
conclusion that the disability at the
ime of the second hearing (Decen-
er IL, 1915, was one which he would
lot definitely state was due to the in
ury received by the claimant on the
4th day OF May, 1915, for when asked
he question: do you consider the
mans present physical condition de-
'endent upon the injury received at
hat timer" he answered as follows:
No, do not think so.''
Mental Depression.
DR.. Dart of Mantle testified that
70 examined Mr.. Cabel on the fourth
ay after the injury and the claimant
to him to be more or less
and that he saw NO
hysical signs OF disease the last time