Norwich bulletin., 1918-05-04

Waiting from Nov. 30. 1917, until March ', 1918, before he either had emedical attention or reported an in- jury to his left eye. which subse- fquently resulted in the loss of sight of that eye, cost Moves A. Ecclestone of North Stonington, and employe of the state highway department consid- erable sum in his workmens compen- lsation claim, according to a finding and award just made by Commission CT J. J. Donahue.
 After hearing all the evidence in the case Commissioner Donohue states in his finding that the claimant would have been entitled to compensation at the rate of $9 per week for 104 weeks but owing to the prejudice which the respondent, The State of Connecticut, has suffered from failure to receive prompt notice of the injury and on account of their inability to furnish prompt and proper medical attention, and also on account of their inability to prepare a defense, it is found that the claimant should be penalized to the extent of reduction of award by 36 weeks.
 The state of Connecticut is accord ingly directed to pay to Mir. Ecclestone through his attorney the sum of S199 |, for 22 weeks from Dec. 1, 1917, to and including May 3, 1918. The balance of 46 weeks is to be paid directly to the claimant at the rate of $9 per week and the state of Connecticut also pays the doctors bill of $10
 Ecclestone was at work on Nov. 30, 1917 at Gardner's Hill O nthe Volun- town road in Griswold. when fellow workman accidently threw a shovelful of frozen gravel into his face. A piece of the gravel hit his eye and caused hemorrhages which caused the loss of sight in the eye The man con- tinued at work for the rest of the day, but has not worked for anyone since them.
 The testimony of Dr. F. c. Pierce of North Stonington, an optometrist, the records of the late Dr. A. Peck of Nor wich, and the testimony of Dr. La- Pierre of this city were all brought in as evidence in the case.
 In a memorandum of decision. Com missioner Donahue makes the follow ing review of the case.
 The important points in the pres ent case which come up for considera- tion are the lack of prompt notice of injury. failure of the claimant to seek prompt medical attention, previous eye trouble on the part of the claimant and the fact that the employe did moi give his employer an opportunity tc prepare a defense
 As stated in the finding the claim ant did not consult physician unti March :, 1918, period of three months and over having elapsed since his in. jury of Nov. 30, 1917 In the opinior of Dr. LaPierre. the eye specialist whom he then consulted, the hemor- rhage was so massive and extensive that he did not believe that if he had seen the claimant earlier that it would have made any difference so far as saving the eve was concerned. Ht thought in this particular case that even immediate treatment would have been of no avail in saving the sight O the eye. The doctor did admit. how. ever. that if the claimant had called upon him earlier. or Immediately, after the injury. he would have treated thu case and he believed the man should have sought immediate medical at tention and at least given an opportu nity to see what might have done' il the way of treatment with the possi
 bility of saving some of the vision
 As the claimant in the present case if we are to accept the record of D1 Peek. (and it was agreed by both par ties that his record should be mad
 a part of the evidence) had slightl