Montana labor news., 1939-01-26
COMPENSATION LAW
SHOULD Be AMENDED

bSiiCAlto W bnG W40OW, IL llGlG d1S
no children, to the extent of 35 per
cent of the average wage of the
deceased husband. This amount is
paid until her death or until she
marries. This clause of compensation
law is included in section 5 on page
80. The widow receives an award
in which she gets two years COM
%pensation in a lump sum at the time
of her ~remarriage.
Now the state of Nevada law for
the year of 1887 on page Is reads:
ITO the widow-if there are no
children, 30 per cent of the average
wage of the deceased to be paid
until her death or %remarriage, with
two years compensation in one sum
upon remarriage."
The laws of the state of Utah for
1887, page 43, also says: SHOULD a
widow who is the sole dependent
of a deceased employee and who is
receiving the benefits of this title
remarry during the period covered
by such weekly payment she shall
be entitled to receive in a lump sum
payment one-third of the benefits
remaining unpaid at the time of such
remarriage."
Payments to the widow until
death or r~emarriage not to exceed
400 weeks r allowed to widows in
the state of Idaho, according to laws
of 1881 annotated to date.
However, the laws of the state of
Montana, 1887, section 1892, page
q, reads as follows: When compen-
sation to beneficiaries, major or
minor dependents or widow ceases,
y = if any beneficiaries or major
or minor dependents of deceased or
if the widow or widower %remarries,
the right of such beneficiary or
major or minor dependent or such
widow or widewer to compensation
under this act shall cease.
You will readily see this so-called
compensation is like the muckers'
wages, ION the sliding scale" Should
the widow meet with more hard luck
such as death among her children
her benefits become less. If she
marries, all benefits to herself and
children are wiped out.
Referring again to the laws of the
state of Arizona, it is found on page
"a, Session of IS: In case of the death
of a dependent specified in the fore
going enumeration before the ex-
piration of the time named in the
award, his funeral expenses not to
exceed $3.50 shall be paid. This may
be interpreted as follows: This re-
fers to the decedent's dependents.
Interested persons may look on page
33, Session avs of Arizona of 1885.
It has also been noticed under
Colorado's compensation laws that
it is possible for a permanent total
disability case to collect for life.
Do you know that 95 per cent of
metal mining risks are underwritten
by the state of Colorado?
Montana figures for 1882 are
about BIZ per cent under plan 3,
and it is presumed means all risks.
I have also read that CALIFORNIA;
compensation cost per 500 is less
than that of Colorado.
California also has an o%ccupational
disease clause. It is not possible to
find where employers in Montana
must pay for the loss of the life of
a worker, not having beneficiaries
or dependents. They must pay
funeral expenses not to exceed $3.50.
In Arizona if there are no de-
pendents the employer, the insurer,
or the state compensation fund shall
pay the burial expenses and shall
pay the state treasury the sum of
$3.50. The money that is put into
the treasury is to be used for the
benefit of other injured workers.
In Utah (Sec. 42-1-64, page 38,
laws of 'S7), if there r no depend
ents, the employer or insurance
carrier shall pay into the state treas
ury a sum equal to 20 per cent of
the amount provided in subdivision
2 of this section. The section stipu-
lates a maximum of $1,000 and a
minimum of $4,000.
Continuing with our comparison
of state laws in respective, the state
of Idaho says; "In case no claim of
the compensation is made by de-
pendent of the deceased employee
and filed with the board within one
year, the employer shall pay into
the states treasury to be deposited
in the Industrial Administration
fund, the sum of $1,000" My ex-
perience trying to collect claim for
permanent total disability over al
period Of 9 years and 6 months,
without success, leads me to believe
the following changes are necessary
and desirable:
l.. Compensation and hospitaliza-
ton should be under a state or fed
eral setup. This would save the
worker from being denied admit
lance to hospital if sick or injured.
Also it would save the injured work.
err from being robbed of his claim
on such grounds; eve have no
acknowledgement the result of injury
not while in u employ. You did
not file your claim at the right time
with the right party"-or some other
technical chicanery some %overpaid
lawyer may think Of.