Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1951-08-08
DC. Employers
Of Handicapped
Put on Spot
Employer Liable
For Aggrovotion of
Previous Injuries


same way or is incapacitated by
an aggravation of the old injury
An Interpretation of the Dis
trict Workmen's Compensation
Act is responsible for the dilemma
David Amato, head of the Dis
trict Rehabilitation Services, says
he feels it is time to broaden the
compensation laws to make the
Government responsible for handi-
man who hires them.
Mr.. Amato'S job is to place
handicapped persons in positions
they can perform with safety. But
employers, he says, are under
Standably reluctant to hire such
workers because, if such an en-
ploye hurts himself again, his boss
is responsible for his upkeep while
he's off the job.
Across from Mr.. Amato's Office,
in Temporary Building V at
Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania
avenue NV, is that of Theodore
Britton, deputy commissioner for
the Workmen's Compensation Act.
He administers the compensation
laws as they were written and
have been interpreted by the
courts.
Case in Point.
The fly in Mr.. Amato's ointment
Is a situation like this:
A worker suffers back injury
While he's off the job, his en-
ployer pays his workmen's COM
pensation. Then, when he's well
enough to work again, he gets a
job with another employer.
A short time after he is on the
new job. the worker strains his
back, and the old injury flares up.
He can't work again, and this
time, it's his new employer who
must pay his upkeep while he's off
work. And when Mr.. Amato asks
that employer to hire another,
handicapped worker, the employer
SHES away.
The question arises, should the
workers former boss, in whose en-
ploy the worker was originally in
Jured, have to pay compensation
even though the man no longer
works for him? And should the
new employer be responsible for an
injury suffered on a previous job?
Mr.. Amato says neither. He
says the Government should as
sumo the responsibility, because
1t is unfair to penalize either en-
ployer when neither is directly re-
sponsible.
Mr.. Britton says there have been
cases IN which the courts have
divided responsibility between the
old employer and the present en-
ployer. But these, he points out,
are exceptions.
Generally. the Workmen's Com
pensation Act provides payment of
a minimum of $12 a week and a
maximum of $35 a week to en-
ployes who are away from work
because of injuries arising out of
normal employment.
Includes Old Injury.
However, this has been inter-
preted to include aggravation of
an old injury-one that lnay have
been suffered when the worker was
in the hire of another man.
The law. however, specifically
exempts employers from liability
for a previous injury in cases
where permanent total disability
or permanent partial disability &C.
ours through another unrelated in
jury.
For example, if man who has
only one temperament partial
disability under the law-loses the
other arm. he becomes totally dis
abled. But the employer is liable
only for the loss of the second
arm and not for the total dis
ability.
The law creates a special fund
from which to pay the difference
between total disability benefits
and the employers liability.
But, If through some injury to
the already disabled arm the en-
ploye becomes unable to work for
a while, the employer is reSpon-
sible for full payment, under the
aggravated injury Interpretation.
Mr.. Amato believes this special
fund should be increased to take
care'of aggravated injuries. If this
were done, he adds, employers
would be more agreeable to hiring
handicapped persons.
Might Invite Carelessness.
A possible danger, he says,
would be that employers might be
more careless about fitting work.
ers to jobs they can perform
with safety. But this could be
overcome. he feels, by educating
employers into using the services
of trained and available person.
mel of the Rehabilitation Service.
Handicapped employees should
have the same protection under
the compensation laws as that
provided normal employees" Mr.
Amato says.
Some workmen's compensation
laws in a few States have waiver
provisions, which permit handi-
capped persons to sign waivers OF
liability. Such laws, Mr.. Amatc
says, do not provide the handi.
capped worker with sufficient pro.
lection. Waivers are specifically
forbidden in the District law.
About the only way an employer
can escape liability. Mr.. Britton
admits, is not to hire handicapped
or careless persons.
The District compensation law
provides total responsibility for
employers if a worker becomes
disabled through aggravation of a
disease or congenital defect.
$1,000 Liability Limit.
The act sets up special main