Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1918-04-16
"XHI"
'apr5-16

I
respondent III support Of its conten-
| ton.
| Article II, Section ]. Chapter 80,
| r. s. 1916, reads in part as follows:
III. 'Employee' Shall include every
| person in the service Of another I'M
der any contract OF hire, express or
! implied, oral or written 1t does
/ not stipulate that the employee shall
| pass a physical test when entering
! employment that he may be entitled
| to compensation. 1t is sufficient that
he is a labor unit of industry. Once
| becoming a labor unit even though
suffering a physical defect due to Il
former INJURY he is entitled to COM
pensation when disability is brought
about by an accident arising out Of
and in the course Of the employ
mcnt.
In this connection Justice Bralcy
stated in the case Of Crowley vs..
City of Lowell, III y. j.. $50, THE
statute prcScribuS no standard Of
fitness to which an employee rust
conform. and compensation is not
placed on any implied warranty of
perfect health, or immunity from
latent and unknown tendencies to
disease. which may develop into
positive ailments, if melted to &C
tivity through any cause oriGinat-
ing in the performance OF the work
for which he is hired. What the
Legislature might have said is one
u,
another thing, and in the applica-
ton of the statute tic cause Of par
tial or total incapacity may spring
from, and he attributable just as
mach where undeVeloped and dan
gerous physical conditions are set
III motion producing such result as
where it follows directly from dis
locations or acknowledgements: or
from internal organic changes ca
pable of being exactly located"
The recent decision of this Com
mission referred to by counsel for
respondent is similar to this case in
many respects. Prayer was made
for an award for disability due to
hernia caused by an alleged slip
ping, the petitioner attempting to
show that the hernia complained OF
originated on the date named in his
petition. 1t was later admitted that
the trouble had existed since early
childhood. The medical testimony
showed concluaivcly that the hernia
was Of long standing, the operating
surgeon finding no evidence of re-
cent disturbance such as would be
indicated by freshly ruptured yes
sells which would be found III an
immediate operation following in
jury. The commissioner was con-
WINGED that truth was being handled
at long range and not of sufficient
strength to warrant finding that
an accident had taken place as al
legged.
This claimant was under q con-
| tract of hire and receiving q con
sidcration for service required for
! the work of a filing boy. so called.
The fact that he was 81 years of
age and suffering from an incom-
! plete hernia of several years stand
| ing cannot affect his rights of re-
covery under the act 50 long as the
gree of physical qualification re-
| CURED of an employee. The field is
| left open for all 10 enter. 1t is
| specifically stated in subsection l.,
| Article IN of Section | that the fact
| that an employee has suffered a pre-
viouS injury or received compensa-
ton therefor Shall not preclude
compensation for a later injury or
| death.
This claimant had not been en-
ployed for approximately a full
year preceding the injury and the
figures submitted by respondent
giving the yearly earnings Of an
employee similarly employed show
that for the 80 weeks prior to De-
cember z. 1917, the earnings of an
employee doing the same kind Of
work were S49G.25 or equivalent to
an average daily wage Of 81 80.
This daily average multiplied by 800
and divided by 81 gives an average
weekly wage of $917, one-haif of
which equals S4.5S5.
The commissioner finds that dis
ability is the result of an accident
| arising out of and in the course OF
the employment and that the claim
ant Is entitled to compensation re-
sulting from injury. therefore It is
ordered and decreed that the Ed.
wards Manufacturing Company of
Augusta pay to Thomas Cuddy the
weekly compensation of S4.5e5 COW
ering the period from Dec. q, 1917.
to such time as claimant is able to
resume the same or some other en-
ployment.
I1 Is further ordered that the Ed
Naras Manufacturing Co. pay to w.