Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-10-05
NEW RULINGS IN
COMPENSATION
Crossing Watchman Cases
Passed Upon by the State
Commission This Week

The State. Compensation Board has
reversed Referee Klauder, of Phila-
delphia, in awarding compensation
to the widow of crossing watchman
employed at Bridgeport on the Phila-
delphia and Reading Railway. The
opinion says: mo case has been
brought before the Supreme Court of
the United States which has required
it to decide whether a flagman at a
crossing is or is not engaged in in
terstate commerce while tagging an
interstate train. The tagging
of an interstate train at a crossing is
as essential to the security. eXpedi-
tion and efficiency of interstate COM
merce as is the repairing of bridge;
nor indeed can we distinguish be-
tween the employment of a crossing
tender while tagging an interstate
train from that of a fiagman. who,
as member of the crew OF an inter-
etate train, is sent out to perform a
similar service" At the time of the
| injury the man was tagging a train
engaged in interstate commerce.
Another ruling regarding a watch
man is made in n Lackawanna county
case where 1t was found that a man
was enaged in tagging a train en-
gagged in intrastate commerce. "As
the admitted facts show that the
claimants decedent was killed while
| the train movements were wholly in
trastate we are of the opinion that
the referee did not err" in making
an award.
a ruling regarding time of filing
of claim is made in the case of Ellis
VS.. Harrison Brothers and Company,
Inc. Philadelphia. The defendant
ccntended that the date of mail
ing was the date of fling but tho
Board does not take that view The
petition was mailed just one year
after the accident and received at
| the principal office of the Board here
three days later. BY failing to file
within year the claim lost it's force.
In a Wilkes BARRE case compensa-
tion is awarded men hurt by a gas
explosion in room in a mine about
which there was a contradiction of
| Testimony a s to directions given. The
men hurt took up rails as directed,
but the question was whether they
went to the room directed. =.
| Commissioner John A. Scott says
in dismissing an appeal in Kranyak
| VS.. Hillside Coal and Iron Company,
| Scranton, that too much testimony is
| taken from physicians which is OF
| little consequence. The man died
| from being hit by a drill.
y. stepmother need not file a new
claim petition to obtain compensation
which had been granted to her hus-
| band for the death of his son upon
whose earnings the pair were depend
ent according to ruling made by
Chairman Mackey in Kephart vs.
Pennsylvania Coal and Coke Company
| a Cambria county case. The award
| took the wife into consideration.
The Board renews it's ruling that
involuntary inhalation of gas is an
| accidental injury" in the case of
| Bath VS.. the Aetna Explosives
Company, in which it was claimed
| that the claimant was made sick by
inhaling fumes due to an explosion
in room where he was working.
In Finger VS.. Clarke Can Company,
Philadelphia. it was held that there
must be proof by testimony that a
man awarded compensation for an
injury dies from another cause before
terminating compensation.
The Board granted new hearings
| in these cases: Youngkin vs. Beggs
and Cobbs Tanning Company. Somer-
set, in which it is held that there is
not enough testimony of infection
by anthrax through a cut; Shebar vs.
Pennsylvania Foundry, Cambria; Nc
, Keown VS.. Epping- Carpenter Com
pany, Allegheny; Mulhall VS.. Pardee,
| LuZerne.
| Communication was awarded in Burns
| vs.. Curran, Philadelphia; Rizzo VS.,
+ Bradford Pressed Brick Company, Nc
/ Kean.
/ Appeals dismissed were: Reilly VS..
Erie Railroad. Susquehanna; Gala
! Gher VS.. Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western Railroad, and Papoy VS.. Del
aware and Hudson Company, Lacka-
wanna; Deane VS.. Philadelphia and
Reading Coal and Iron Company,
Schuylkill; Bowen VS.. Gault Company,
Philadelphia; Brehm VS.. Philadelphia
and Reading Railway, Dauphin; Davis
vs.. Carpenter Steel Company, Berks;
Schempp VS.. German Evangelical Lu-
theran Church, Allegheny; Koloski vs.
Lehigh Valley Coal Company, Luzerne