Norwich bulletin., 1916-11-15

Compensation at $1o weekly during disability, with hospital, medical and surgical bills, was the award made by Conmissioner James J. Donohue in the case of Charles Riley, claimont, vs. the New London Marine Iron Works company. The finding with several others was filed in the superior court office in this city on Tuesday.
 The hearing was held in the com- missioner's office on Monday afternoon, Nov. 9th, at o'clock. From the testi- mony of tine claimant it was found that some time in June, 1915, the exact date being undetermined, while lifting heavy core at the works Of his em- ployer. he suffered severe strain which was later found to be a hernia. It was also found that he did not consult physician until the following April, at which time an operation was advised and the claimant went to the hospital and was operated on for the relief of his hernia on April 24. which was the first day of Incapaeity. He | work on June 2d.
 The claimant asked for the hearing l that it might be determined whether or not he was entitled to the benefits of the act and he made claim for com pensation during disability and for medical. surgical ard hospital bills It was first claimed by the respondents | that the claimant had not given a mo- l tice to his employer within the time l required by law; that is to say, they 1 claimed & year had elapsed between l the time in which the injury was re- eeived and the time in which claim for compensation had been made, if any could be considered to have been made at all.
 Shall Not Bar Proceedings. It is true that no written notice was served upon the employer but accord ing to section 21 of part B of the act No want of such notice of claim shall De Q bar to the maintenance o1 proceedings, and III 1ic case shall any defect or inaccuracy of such notice ol | claim be bar to the maintenance o1 proceedings unless the employer shaI | show that he was ignorant of the in- ury and was preudice dthereby.'
 This lack of written notice would be no just ground for refusing eompen sation in vie wof the ruling of the su- preme court in the case of Schmid vs. O. k. Baking company. recently decided, where it was 8 case similar to this one, and the word want wa! constructed as lack of or absence O. notice.
 It appears from the testimony tha the respondents were under the i'm pression that no notice had been give1 by the claimant within a year from the time of his injury, but the testi
 mony of the claimant showed that II,
 received his injury n the carly par of June, 1915. and trat he had giveI his notice of inury )me time in Apri
 of 1916. at which time he had men
 toned to his foreman that he had con suited a physician to determine tn cause of his trouble. The foreman 0 the plant, who was present at tn, hearing, corrobor:tted this statement although there was q slight discrep
 ancy in the dates
 Not Reported to Office. The injury had not been reported t
 the office of the factory through al oversight or the part of the foreman
 or it may have been due to the fac
 that Mir. Whitons attention Lad beel
 brought to the case, but he did no
 recall @tEe incident: consequently, tn
 insurer had not received a notice, bu 8 slip in the clerical duties of the fore
 man or the employer should not be bar to tie claimant receiving his com
 pensaticr, since tle fact is admitted b the foreman that his attention ha
 been brought to the injury by tn claimant some time in March of tn
 present year.
 | Hernia cases are very apt to be ac
 companied by slight discrepancies ii
 dates. and oftentimes such cases ar
 not reported until weeks or month
 after the injury may have occurred although it is thoroughly clear to tn
 claimant that an injury occurre
 which at the time seemed SC trifiin
 as to hardly deserve consideration a
 the time, and the claimant often pur
 sues his regular occupation until sue
 time as the condition becomes so az
 gravated that he seeks medical atten
 ton and advice, and then the histor
 of the case all comes to him yer
 clearly.
 faIIou 1rorl,p,.p r-itl, ,1,J,o,,, IT.
 claimant was at work at the time c his injury, and to whom the claiman spoke at the time. when he receive
 the strain in question, testified at tn
 hearing and substantiated the claim
 ants statement as to the circum l stances surrounding the inury
 | Respondents Claimed Prejudice.
 Prejudice was claimed by the re
 spondents on account of the injury an
 the claim not being reported to the1 immediately, but as the claimant wa
 able to follow his ordinary occupati from June, 1915, until April, 1s1 there was no occasion for serving notice prior to the time on which I,
 eventually called the attention of hi
 foreman to his condition, and wlafc act on his part he considered all ths : was necessary; also from the fact tfls the claimant did not realize the seri
 ousness If his injury until he sougf IuSoLCdI duN1CO, sl1lcI WnlCn ne gaV notice of his condition to this forema and stated the necessity of his under going at operation, at which time tE employer had an opportunity to offe to procure the proper medical service
 if he so desired, or if he was not sal
 isfied with what the claimant ha ' done; but no such offer was made, an consequently the claimant sorg ght tf medical services which he would I entitled to and the same would be a l expense chargeabIe 10 the employer all of which facts fail to prove tn. Il the employer or insurer were prejt diced by the claimants actions in tn iregard.
 I After considering all the circun I stances in connection with this eas | it is found that the claimant is ent | tied to compensation during disabili,
 and also to the medical services Ter dered. -
 The commissioner awarded compeI lsation to the amount of $40, which compensation for four weeks at u