Norwich bulletin., 1919-07-21

ASK YOUR DEALER has been, therefore. matter of con- lecture as to whether the view thus taken by the superior court which the commissioners have followed since the decision would finally prevail The general assembly. after full hearing and consideration, took the l view that whatever the act as 1t has existed in the past may have meant, sound policy requires that the view that the partial dependent should re- ceive the full amount of the support which he has been receiving, up toI the maximum allowed total depend ents. should be adopted.
 ' A radical change has been made on the subject of the waiting period. While it remains what it was before, namely seven days. an important pro- vision is added that if the incapacity extends beyond four weeks the cm- psoye shall receive compensation for this waiting period. whereas the. wait 1 ing period remains absolute and no, compensation is paid for the first sey- ] en days in case the incapacity is less than four weeks. It is still the law that the employe shall receive his full wage for the en- tire day of the injury. in the same way as if he had worked all day. a point which is sometimes misunder- stood.
 Probably through a mistake. the old
 
 widow or Widower. on her or his death to the dependents of the de- ceased widow or widoEer. It is now changed so that it is continued for the benefit of the dependents of the de- i ceased emPioye.
 Tn cases of partial, incapacity, and also in cases of injury resulting In l death, the maximum amount of week | ly compensation has been raised from fourteen dollars to eighteen dollars. In cases of partial incapacity the max ] irnum period during which conpensa- l ton may be paid. in case the incapac- 1 ity extends so long. has been raised from SIP weeks six years. to five hun- ; d-ed and twenty weeks, ten years, making maximum period for par tial incaraeity tho same as that for recommended this change for the req son that the old law encouraged men who could do some work mot to do anything because by going to work
 \ ,ich they might receive compensa- l I4Ja for incapa city
 The commissioner iz now allowed. under certain conditions. to add inter- apply however. only where there has been considerable delay. Interest will not be figured on the ordinary. ev- ery-day > SC.
 X provision is now made by which, under the name of a pro-fornaa award, a point may practically be reserved by the commissioner to the superior court, to go from that court to the supreme court of errors. in the same 1 way that tho superior court may re- serve q doubtful point to the supreme court of errors under the existing law. This will enable a mooted ques- ton to be carried to the highest court and authcrttatively determined in- stead of leaving it perhaps in doubt for many years.
 The cornm missioner is given added
  as to hold them up to prompt settle naSnts. and is also given power to re- yoke certificates allowing self insar- CTS to carry their own risk; in case those self insurers do not make prompt and proper settlements. They may exercise this power independent 1 ly of whether or not the seif-insurer is solvent.
 man loses an eve or an arm or any other member, he is entitled to com pen-ation for incapacity in addition to the compensation for the specific number of weeks allowed for the loss of the member, was debated at great len gjh before the comm issioners and several deci5icns were re~d dered, three i of which went to the supreme court of errors. Tn Frarke v=. Sch hoilhorn and in Olmstead vs. Laniphere the su- prene court of errors sustained the view of the commissioners that In case there was a period of iucapacity preceding the 6nDU'dLlon OI a lnchl- Der, ompensation >.ouid be awarded for such neriod of incapacity. In kra-
 nacr vs. Sargent. however. the court drew a distinction. not drawn by the commissioner, and held that there can be no allowance for inca pacity where the period during which the injured empleyc is laid up follows the ampu- tation The court. Of course, WAS 1 corstruing the law as 1t was then written, and made no intimation as ] to the justice or injustice of the rule 1 The general assembly, after hearing i hy the judiciary committee, concluded 1 that the distinction thus made in the old law was an unwise one and pro- vided that iu every ease the connpen- sation for the loss of member shall | be in addition to compensation for ir- capacity.
 l Many oe the amendments made by the general assembly were suggested 1 by the commissioners in their annual report, it being one of their duties, under the statute. to report needed 1 changes in the law. A number of the 1 changes. however, original insthe gen eral assembly. and a number were ! suggested by various interests anect-
 ed by the operation of the act. and by 1 citizens interested in the act. The Ju- dietary committee took all of these
 suggestions passed upon them, weld { ed them together, and the result ap- i pears in Chapter 142 of the Public 1 Acts of 1s1s. which Is to be read in l connection with the compensation act i as 1t appears in Chapter 2a4 or the l General Statutes.