The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-09-28

sentative of the Waterbury Anti Tuberculosis League which became interested in the claimants case, says the finding. A representative of the State Factory Inspector also visited the plant and ordered cer- tain changes made. These changes were not made however, until af- ter the claimant had suffered disability in May, 1894. the find- ing says.
 During the early years of the claimants employment she worked from 60 to 70 hours a week. This condition prevailed until a labor union was organized among the employees and the hours were re- duced to an average of 36 hours a week. This reduction was also due in part to the enactment of the national recovery administra- ton act, the finding explains.
 The claimant spent the years of her adolescent life in the factory of the respondent employer. Dur- ing these years she was particu- larly susceptible to attack from tubercular germs and because of the extraordinary bad sanitary conditions and long working hours and other conditions of employ ment imposed upon her she was exposed to infection in excess of the ordinary hazards of employ ment.
 The finding says the girl con- suited 8 doctor in 1893 and after x-rays were taken in May, 1884, she was sent to a sanitarium for observation and treatment.
 Commissioner Lynch says that as a result of the infection to which the claimant was exposed at her work, she became disabled on May 23, 1884, that the disability arose out of and in the course of her employment.
 The memorandum of decision which accompanies the finding, showing the commissioners inter- pretation of the compensation act follows in part: /
 "The Workmen's Compensation Act is designed to afford assistance to workmen who suffer disability as a result of their employment. As originally passed, the act cov- cred only accidental injuries as that term is ordinarily understood. It did not include compensation for disease peculiar to the em- ployment. In 1921, the legislature passed an act by which workmen were to receive compensation when they suffer disease peculiar to the employment.
 "Tuberculosis Is not recognized as peculiarly a disease arising out of any special employment. I see no reason. however. why 8 person who is set to work under condi- tions which peculiarly subject him to attack from the tubercular germ, should not receive the bene- fit of the act, because in his par ticuIar instance the disease is peculiar to his special work, under the conditions imposed upon him For that reason feel that the claimant in this case, being sub jected to attack from the tuber- cular germ under conditions pre- vailing in the establishment of the respondent employer and espe- cially when these conditions were maintained knowingly by the enl. pioyer, is entitled to receive com pensation.
 "TubercuIosis is not Q disease |'peculiar to the business of making ladies' dresses but in this instance 1t was made peculiar to the re- spondent employers factory through what may be termed hiG own improper conduct. At 'com- mon law, the employer had certain definite duties imposed upon him: He was bound to give the employe reasonably safe place to work and warn him of any unusual hazard where q warning became necessary.
 Tt seeins no more than fair and just that under the compensation '-'~A~. the employer should not be