Norwich bulletin., 1920-12-13

nied by Commissioner James J. Donohue In the case of Louis Rose of No. II Thames street, Groton, claimant against The BAbcock Printing Press Mfg. Co, of New London. The commissioners find ing was announced Saturday afternoon. The hearing was held in the commission CTS office in the Central building Tues day, December 7th.
 At the hearing the testimony showed that on Jan. 10th 1919, the claimant re- ceived an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment consisting of punctured wound of the right foot caused by stepping on nail. Because of said injury, which was cared for by pr. Hewes of Groton, the claimant was dis abied until Feb. 10th, 1919, on which
 day he resumed work. An agreement sfor ~compensation at the rate of s14 per week was approved by the commissioner. and 1t found that the terms of the agree ment have been fully complied with.
 On Sept, 30. 1919 ,or about eight months later, the claimant received anoth- CT injury consisting or a second degree burn of the left hand, injury arising out of andesin the course of his employment with the same respondent employer. This
 Injury was treated by Dr. Barnum of
 Groton and resulted in an incapacity
 extending te Nov. 5, 1919. On which day
 he returned to his regular employment.
 This injury was compensated for by the terms of an agreement approved by the commissioner, which provided for com pensation at tke rate of $17.S3 per week during disability, together with medical. surgical and hospital services. It was found that the terms of this agreement
 have also been fully carried out.
 On Janu 21st, 1920, while tending a cupola in the foundry of the assured the claimant was taken stick and returned 10 his home, and was treated by Dr. Bar mum of Groton, who diagnosed the ease as influenza and pneumonia,. On Feb. 10. 1920, a condition of phlebitis developed which resulted in gangrene- and necessi- tated the amuptation of the 'claimant's S right leg few inches below the knee on I March 2d 1920.
 | The hearing was call d by the respond 1 ents for the purpose of determining the I-question as to whether the claimant was entitled to compensation because of the 1 amputation of his leg, and also to determ- l ire whether the condition which necessi- 1 lated the a,nputation was in any way connectsd with his employment
 l The testimony shows that the claim ant is an incessant smoker of cigarettes. i smoking 20 to 25 a day, and that he | 1 since he r,:ts about 15 years of age. Glg- arctic smoking has been known 10 pro- l ,tuce a condition of entiarteritis Fobliter- ] ins which resulted in a dry gangrene. but .,le facts do not support this idca and |; consequently it is found that the DhIeSitis
 was the causativ. factor in the proauc- 1 lion of the Gangrene in this case. It is all ! so found that the phiebitis was due to l he pneumonia and inflcenza which he Ge- i yelepod about the first Of February, 1920. 1 and that the phlebitis could net have 1 trGccahie to either of the i@jur!es men i toned above as the period of time eiaps-
 ing between cause and iffect was too great to show any casual connection l,2- ] tween the injuries ands the phlebitis
 From the facts as found neither che of 1 the ynar 1919 could have mad in any WI, shy influence upon this ph -eoitis wili- deye!o2ed ;n Fe3-uary, 1920 an1 wh:cl 1 ultimately caused the anlputs-tion Of tht | .eg.
 In addition 10 finding that the ph I >hi- Is was tfae direct cause Of the a-npu;aIi3E of the claimants leg it is also found fTaa the evidence that tbis condi ion was i no way connected with the claimants oc cupation or employment or to any !n i,'rios which fn rcceiv; d during the cgur- | )f his "rnp ovment.
 Tn view of tfie facts as found and fol rcesos,s more fnliy stated iF accompany in- ulr~ncranlu5n it is found that tni
 c;alir-ant R. not entitled to eo-npepsati-f
 5,carsc of tha amputati5n of tho leg az
 ord the clrim for compensation is hereb,
 lis ilrw>6.
 n tn. -r'n'narand2n Of decision attach
 nt; te the fr.ling the corir7aissfoner eays: In :',a nrcse:It co~" the c'ajraant a1lf
 f rod i' the year 1919 two se' ,aratA al wholly > net injuries ('rhich arc foan , in noaaay t7 haze any b'~r.rg on tb [ present cl"i'ni for com2cnsatjon9. and !
 . 80 suffered some fre nonths after tn ! eoeoh3 injury and q yaar after the frs
 i;iGgr an a;tacH of influenza and p-eG , nonia. ipf akou$ a month later 2 palehi |, is f.-ye,opad which caused ganerene 0 , the right leg .ir'h 'et neccssitated an ampn Y tation below the knee.
 : No ve;'.- dein;t cl1ir,1 was rnads by th $ crnu,nye in nncs:i7n e~cgpt tf9at te ha 1 lost lis '"'- and was ;Iezirnts of receiviT s compens ,tion fit could be found that | e was entitled to it.
 Of course an effort to suhstantiate - claim for conpeisat!c in. tl,is case wou' e have to lie in connecting She arputatio Q nf the leg, which resulted from the phl, PiIASi Nilit Sltlet lIc Nilcuillyi4ld anu II : 1uenza 4or with the punctured .woundz7 n the right foot which occurred over yes . previous. Then if t could be shown in; V the phlebitis was drA 10 the pneurnoui s and influenza, it must be shown that th " influenza or. pneumonia, were due to eau: s es peculiar to the employment, or that n was an occupatiohal disease, or an injur '' I'arising out of and in the, course of h empioyment, or the result of an injury '. arising.
 .s The history of the first injury in Jan ary, 1913. the punctured wound of u