Norwich bulletin., 1916-08-03

use II16 CdTDOy WQ1cQ ne Q1O use, as 1t was too thin or light for the pur-
 pose in view, and that instead of al-
 lowing 50 pounds of the acid to flow
 into the carboy or demijohn Ginsburg
 allowed 50 odd pounds to enter it, and
 then said to let it run up to 100
 pounds or more. The carboy or denn1-
 john which Ginsburg used should not
 have been used for over 50 pounds
 weight, but on the day in which he
 was injured he ran it up to 100 pounds notwithstanding the caution which had
 been given to him not to use it in such
 a manner. The evidence is somewhat
 contradictory as to who was at fault
 in regard to the amount which was
 allowed to flow into this demijohn on
 this occasion, and it leaves more or
 less doubt as to the responsibility for
 the accident.
 A number of cases with similar cases are here cited and in the light of these the commissioner feels in- clined to believe that it was one of those errors of judgment which enl- plOyes are continuously making dur ing the course of their employment and which resulst in a. large percent age of the injuries received in indus trial occupations.
 That the claimant has received a
 burn of considerable extent, so far as the surface of the body is concerned, there is no doubt, but that the claim ant has not exercised the best judge nent in taking care of his injury Is very evident, as he seems to have drifted from one doctor to another,
 so that no one physician has had a reasonable opportunity to do anything
 for the nervous irritation which he seems to have suffered from, as he has not remained under the treatment of any one physician for sufficient
 length of time. and his constant rub-
 ping the would and scratching the hame is also a source of irritation
 which is not conductive to a. general
 betterment of the situation. Regard ing the amount of suffering which he has endured from the burns, as was
 stated by one of the specialists, this
 is simply a matter of conjecture, and from the statement of one of his own specialists, Dr. Robert Abbe of New
 York city. there seems to be a great deal of doubt in the mind of this specialist as to the amount of this
 suffering and Dr. Abbe was unwilling
 to say anything definite regarding 1t,
 so that I should judge from the
 opinion expressed by him that the
 amount of suffering in the mind of
 this specialist is questionable.
 T. would appear from the medical testimony that the best thing to be
 done by the claimant would be to get
 to work and get his mind off the
 burn which has given him some an- noyance, but the degree of irritation
 was very GuGSuOnaDIG III the minds of some of the medical men, some be-
 licving that his disability should have ceased several months previous and even though this nervous irritation had persisted afterwards. One of the
 medical witnesses thought there
 would be some difficulty in the claim
 ants having done his work while suf-
 fering from this nervous condition on account of the fact that he would not
 be able to concentrate his mind on
 his work while the irritation annoy
 cd him. Of course this neurOtiC con- ditiou and these nervous symptoms spoken of are entirely subjective and the magnitude of this condition is chiefly q question of veracity of the claimant.
 In closing I would say that believe l that it would not fairly come within the scope of serious and wiIful mis- conduct to disallow the claim. be- l lieve that the accident in this case 1 was due to an error of judgment on l the part of the claimant That he suffered a severe burn there is no doubt from the character of the scars ] which he carries as Q, result of the in l jury: that he also suffered from a | nervous irritation for a certain time i following the healing Of the burn is also my opinion; just how long this l irritation has persisted there is some l room for doubt, but that it persisted ! for a period in the neighbOrhOOd of 1 the length of time claimed by the in- 1 iured emDIOye is a fair assumption; l but that he was also fairly treated l and well treated by the respondents 1 there is no doubt, as the money which i was paid him covers practically the l entire period in which he claims to- i tai disability.
 l Therefore, in view of all these cir 1 cun7stances, the foregoing award is l made.
 $9.86 Weekly For 312 Weeks.
 Annis K. Crane of 42 Georgiana l street New London, widow and de- | pendent of the late Varnum E. Crane, l claimant vs. Southern New England 1 Telephone company of New Haven, ] employer, is granted S9.86 weekly for i a perior not to exceed 312 weeks, the payment beginning on July 31, 1916. | At the hearing held on July 2S at | teh office of Commissioner DOnOhUe, | it was found that Varnum B. Crane l was a lineman and was engaged in painting telephone poles on July 8th | on Pequot avenue in New London and | was attended by another emplOye VITO remained on the ground to tie the 1 paint pot to a line which was then to 1 he drawn into proper place by the l decedent He reached the first cross ! arm and was reaching up, when he i was seen to suddenly let go and drop 1 to the ground, and the evidence could | l 300 volt curcutts which shocked him, 1 his death occurring inlmeditely.
 In his finding and award Dr. Dono-
 With the uniform generosity and ] consideration shown by the respond | ent company in all their dealings with their employees, they having already paid to the widow an amount equal l ing four weeks salary in full which
 would have been paid to the decedent l if he had not met with this injury
 which resulted in his death, and the respondents have also offered to pay
 the burial expenses in full amounting
 to S175 As it was found that ex- 1 perses had been paid by the step- l father it was arranged that the re- l spondents should reimburse him to
 the amount stated, cheek being pay
 able to the claimant~and she to en- 1 dorse name in favor of the party 1 named. Howard Marshall, the step- 1 father of Varnum E. Crane.
 l Hereupon, it is hereby awarded, adjudeed and decreed that the re- l spondents shall pay to the claimant at whatever address she may from 1 time to time furnish compensation at 1 the rate of S9.86 weekly for a period not to exceed 312 weeks. Payments