Norwich bulletin., 1919-07-21
DIGEST OF WoRkMEN'
 COMPENSATION LAW

Following the custom of prey yious
 years the board Of compensation ! tin. known as Bulletin No. ' con- taining the com pensatien act in the ! form in which it is after the amend
 ments passed by the 1919 lesisla ture. Bulletin No. {, which contains the law as it was in force previous to July l. | 1919. will govern all cases of injury up to that date.
 l The law. has been amended in mum Der of important points. The course to be pursued by employers Of ] less than five who wish to come with in the act is radically different. In place of the complicated procedure the householder or other employer Of a few people has to do is to take oEr insurance, this brings him autora ati- , cally within the act. If the eunploye does not wish to come within the act he Is to take certain steps which are set out in the law in detail. As mat ter Of fact. most employees wish to come within the terms of the act. so that thi- procedure will probably not be reSa Fded as a matter of very gen eral interest. Generally speaking if employers of less than five do noth- ing. they are not bound to pay com damages at common law.
 The rule estab biished by the supreme court of errors in Miller Vs. American Steel Wire Company. decided about two years ago has now been changed by the legislature and entirely diff ferent rule has been established by the statute. That case, which was one of lead poisoning, decided that diseases which come on gradually as 8 result of industrial conditions did net entitle one to compensation. but , that there must be an injury which could be located at some definite time Under the new act this is no longer so. If. however, the exposure has re- S1llfPd in tho l Y aH existing disease. compensa tion is to be allowed only for the proportion of the disability due to the aggraVation. This i'm poses a difficult ta six upon the commissioner and the questions in volviug this asgravation of a disease will probably be the source of a good deal of litigation.
 Diseases which are of a eontag ious, communicable or mental nature are not included. and there can be no , compensation for such disorders. The commissioners is now given discretion to authorize or direct a change of physician or surgeon. It is the duty of the employ CT to fur nish a physician. If he does not do so on proper notice. the empioye may furnish one at the expense Of the em- plever- Gases have arisen in which i tE~ employer has done nothing toward providing a physician, but as soon as
 the empleye has furnished one the employer has appeared and demanded change. In order to cover that sit nation the act now provides that the 1 enploye, under those conditions. shall ; not be compelled to change the phy- 1 sieian, except With the approval of ! the commissioner. On this whole sub iect the commissioners in their last
 report used this language:
 Many cases arise where. for one reason or another. it is obvious to the i commissioner. although it may not be l to the interested parties, that the in- terests of humanity. and as well, the ] financial interests of both parties. ] may he served by change of physi- : cian.'
 l Another important point concerns ; the amount ct compensation to be re- ceived by a partly dependent. This question has been made the subject of Sood deal of discussion by commits
 sioners and courts. In a long memo
 enc of the commissioners after re-
 ! marking that several inconsistent
 views had been adopted by the sew.
 1 ersl commissioners. held that a
 partial dependent could get the
 ! whole amount which he had
 been in the habit of receiving from ] the deceased workman. So long a s the ma xinuni amount allowed to q total i dependent was not exceeded. The
 commissioner took the view that there j was no reason in the nature of things ! why the same support which the de- pendent had been receiving should not ' be continued so long as the maximum i provided b.F the statute for the pro- i lection of the employer against claims 1 larger than industrial conditions could stand, was not exceeded. He held : that there was nothing in the act which called for any different con
 structton. A different view was
 taken by one of the judges of the su- ! psrior court and the amount allowed
 to partial dependents was cut down so l that they received less than they had ! been receiving during the lifetime of i the emplore. and only a fraction Of what would have been aNowea 10 to- tai dependents. This caSe stands by
 itself, and there has been no decis-
 ion by the supreme court ef errers. It