Norwich bulletin., 1916-01-06
COMPENSATION CLAIM DISMISSED
In New London Case Where Permanent Disability Was
Claimed Inauguration Has Magni6ed Injuries-Manuel
Cabel Was in Employ of Brown Cotton Gin Co--Was
Caught in Shaftng- Saved Himself by Bracing With
Arms.

he saw him which was three or four
weeks after the injury; he stated that
tho man was superflcially bruised but
quite superfcially. and that the last
physically but he seemed to have
more of mental depression which
would corroborate the idea of neuros-
is.
DR.. Hugh Campbell Of Norwich all
SO examined the claimant and found
no positive signs of tuberculosis. and
in his testimony he stated that he
did not consider the injury the PROV
innate cause of the claimants condi-
ton. and would not even consider II
cation.
No Connection With Injury Now.
DR.. Cronin of New London also
made an examination of the claimant
and in his testimony he stated that
in his opinion. from his examination.
ne could not see anything which was
the result of the injury received by
him on the date stated; he also stat
ed that he could not detect the heart
mumer on examination at the hear.
ing and also said that the injury re-
ceived by the claimant could not
cause heart trouble; that he did not
think the present condition of the
cIaln1ant was due to the injury. neith-
er did he. think that the condition
found three months after the injury
was at AL connected with 1t.
When DR.. Cronin examined the
claimant at his home he found him
in what he considered very normal
conoltlon, and he walked the same as
any person would until he found that
DR.. Cronin was there to examine him
and them limp rather suddenly de-
veloped
Failed to Prove Claim.
According to a decision of the SUI
preme court of New Jersey in the
case of Reimers VS.. Proctor Publish
ing company, as reported in N. c. c.
A. VOL. 4, page TAO. where the doc
caused by the accident, there is no
basis for an inference to that effect
by the court. The burden of proof
is in accordance with the ordinary
rule upon the petitioner" Along this
line of reasoning. in Ne case in uues
ton it is impossible to And for the
claimant. In order to establish his
claim. the claimant must establish it
by a fair preponderance Of evidence
which in this case he has failed to
do
There appears to be a difference of
opinion among the physicians as to
whether there is any disability, and
there is some evidence which would
show thata the claimant is of the
ma!insering type. and suffering from
a sIlgbt heart murmur, but there is no
evidence to show that the disability,
II any exists. and which is of a very
character. is in any wav
connected with the injury which he
received.
Accordingly, the claim is dismiss
ed.
More Pay When Sick.
The foreman of the Brown Cotton
Gin company, in whose employ the
nor MO- irairr
bel received. during his incapacity
seventeen dollars per week-five dol
lars from the Travellers Insurance
company, five dollars from a Portu-
suese Benefit society and seven dol
lars from the Brown Cotton Gin COM
pany benefit fund. which would be
seven dollars per week more than he
received during the time that he was
working.
OF course. these facts, coupled with
Dr.. Cronin's statement concerning the
condition he found the claimant in
when he appeared Unexpectedly to
make an examination, would indicate
that there was a tendency to malinger
and malingering is not an easy thing
to rrove by medical examination as
not being present.
HaGbaugh in Causes of Disability"
page 17S, says that the to prove it
and to cure it is to pay certain
of money when all the signs
and symptoms referabIe to an alleged
injury Immediately disappear and
the individual is in perfect health
again." Patients of this character al
ways magnify their injuries and they
give line of poorly described symp-
toms in their effort to satisfy them
selves that they are suffering from
disability.
Not one of the physicians who ex-
amined the claimant is willing to
make the unqualified statement that
The present condition of the claimant
IS in any way connected with the in
Jury received and as a matter of fact
when DR.. Douglass, the attending
physician was asked the question:
DO you consider the mans present
physical condition dependent upon
he injury received at that timer" he
mo, I do not think So" And
when DR.. Cronin was asked the same
question. his reply was: mo. 1 do
not think his condition is due to the
accident"