The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-03-18
LIMITING PERIODS OF COMPENSATION
 |S N0T DEFENS|bLE
Bowen Says Termination of Widows Pay in 300
 Weeks Is Unfair
Fly LEWIS BOWEN

Perhaps the least defensible pro- vision in compensation Legislation is limiting the periods for which com pensation is payable if need still ex- ists at the expiration of these periods The termination of compensation to weeks, say, cannot be justified on any logical and humanitarian prin- ciplf. The older the widow persum- ably the greater her dependence and need for compensation unless she has married. It Is not maintained that all widows should receive compensa- ton indefinitely, irrespective of their subsequent marital condition or eco homie status. On the contrary, it is desirable that the amount of com pensation be correlated with the eco- homie need. but to terminate arbi- trarily the compensation irrespective of the needs of the widow cannot be defended. The same principle holds true with respect to permanent total and temporary total disabilities. The longer the workman is disabled the greater will be his need for com pensation and to terminate his com pensation while he is still totally mental principles of workmen's com pensation laws. As regards perma- nent partial disa Utilities practically all of the states provide compensa- tion for specific periods for each type of permanent disability, such as 150 weeks for the loss of hand, 125 weeks for the loss of a foot, 30 weeks for the loss of a thumb, etc. These permanent partial disability sche dules while supposed roughly to rep resent tho loss of earning capacity are entirely inadequate for the major disabilities and actually bear little relationship to the loss of earning .rf ocy,1ti fror ol,t ties. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with these flat sche- dules. which has resulted in tho ap- pointment by the I A. l. A. B. c. of a committee to formulate standard permanent disability schedule in which the compensation benefits shall be expressed in percentages of permanent total disability. Such per centa ges shall represent. IS near as it is possible to ascertain, the actual loss of earning capacity from these injuries. A tentative standard perma- nent disability schedule has been for mulated by the committee and pre- scented to the l. 4. l. A. E. c.
 O O O
 Second Injuries.
 Minimum requirements. Tn case of q second injury, that is, in case of tie loss of d second ear or eye, etc. the employer shall be charged with
 
 iured employe shall re ceive compen- sation for the disability caused by the combined injuries. The difference between what the employer Is re- auired to pay and what the injured cmploye shall receive shall Le paid ot of n special fund. This fund can be created by charging a certain amount in no dependency death cases as is done in New York or by charg- ing an additional amount In case of each permanent disability as is done in Wisconsin.
 Present Status.--In case of a second injury approximately one-third of the states grant compensation onl- for the disability caused by that par ticular injury without reference to the previous injury. Over one-third of the states grant compensation for the entire disability caused by the combined injuries, that Is, if an em- ployc lost second eye he would be paid compensation for permanent total disability. In number of states compensation for second in- the stability caused by the prior caused by the subsequent injury.
 Comment.-If workman should receive in case of the loss of sec ond eye compensation for one eye only it would be manfestly unjust. On the other hand, if he would be awarded permanent total disability it would result in a discrimination against the employment of one-eyed and other handicapped workmen. The obvious and simple solution of this dilemma is the establishment of