Norwich bulletin., 1918-05-04
DELAYED REPORTING HIS ACCIDENT
Neither Did Moves Eccestone of North Stonngton Seek Medical Advice For Some Tme-Brngs Him Penalty In Compensation Award Against State Highway Depart ment For Loss of Eye-Awards By Commissioner Dono- hue

better than one-half of normal vision, and it is fair to assume that this vis ion never increased any and was no better at the time he received the in- jury than it was at the time he was examined by Dr. Peck; in fact medi- cal knowledge would lead me to be- lieve that it might be a trifle poorer; it might be claimed with apparent justice that as he had no better than half an eye, why should he be com pensated for whole eye: why not. in other words, give him one-half of 104 weeks instead of 104 weeks. If he had received a previous injury and had lost one-half of his vision as the re- suit of such an injury and had been compensated for the same, I should feel constrained to award one-half of 104 weeks, but as there is no history of any previous injury. and the vision which he had at the time of his injury while in the states employ was his vision, I think he should be compen- sated for the loss of the eye such as he had, deducting as has been done in the award for the prejudice which the employed is found to have sui fered.
 The sight of eyes in different indi- viduals varies greatly and there is a large percentage of people very far from the normal standard as far as their vision is concerned but their vision, such as it is, serves them for all practical and necessary purposes and enables them to do all the work which the individual with a normal vision has the ability to do; in fact, , there are not many of us who are physically perfect.
 The law does not speak of the loss of normal eye; it simply speaks of the loss of an eye, or rather the loss of sight of an eye, and if the claim ant in the present case had sight iu his left eye before he injured it and no sight afterwards, then of course he has lost the sight of the eye. When an employer takes a man into his em- ployment, he takes him with his short l comings. if he has any, and to set Up 8 standard or normal type of man hy which to judge all others, We would l be endeaviring to establish a standard which would be well-nigh impossible,
 CT having even succeeded in establish 1 ing a standard, it would be unreason- able to expect other men to measure 1 up to that standard.
 i The claimant in the present case is
 a man of quite apparent peculiarities, and as on the previous occasion about 1 four years ago when he had trouble with his eyes and consulted an eye specialist he did not consider that he had received any benefit, so in the
 present instance after he injured his eye in November he did not think, ac-
 cording to his testimony, that he would receive any more benefit from treat
 ment than before and consequently he did not consult a physician on this latter occasion.
 AS stated in the finding the first mo-
 tice of the injury which was brought
 to the attention of the employer was
 about the middle of March 1918, sc
 that during this entire period from November SS0th, 1917, to March 1918
 the employe had no knowledge of any injury whatever, and no opportunity
 to provide medical attention, which
 might or might not in the present case
 have improved the condition, an6
 thereby the employer would be re- lieved, in case of an improvement ir
 the condition, or part of the burden o1
 specific compensation, and the pecu-
 niary liability of the employer would
 have been possibly lessened.
 Furthermore, the employer, having
 no knowledge of claim of this sort
 has had no opportunity to make an in
 vestigation and provide defense. : is not fair to the employer to depriv,