TH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION Compensation for Occupational Diseases HE question of compensation for industrial diseases is discussed by Dr. Carey P. McCord in an article in National Safety News, October, 1928. Special provision for compensation of occupational diseases is made in the statutes of nine States, four of which-Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio-have a scheduled list, while California, Connecticut, Illinois, North Dakota, and Wisconsin allow for occupational diseases in general terms. Massachusetts has in some cases construed the term "injury" to cover certain occupational diseases. In States where there is a specific schedule the effect of the law is to commit a manifest injustice, as workers who are disabled as the result of exposure to some poisonous substance or from some disease which is included in the list receive compensation but in the same factory a worker who is equally disabled as a result of his employment but from a cause which is not specified in the schedule is not entitled to compensation. Most persons, the writer says, including both industrialists and physicians, have difficulty in limiting and defining occupational diseases. This arises from the fact that there are many border-line cases, although in the majority of instances the difference between accident and disease is fairly clear cut. As an example the case is cited of a machinist working with a lathe, who receives an injury to his fingers or hands which is clearly an industrial accident, while the same machinist on the same lathe who develops an eruption on his hands from the continued use of cutting oils is suffering from an occupational disease. While in a case like this the degree of disability might be equal in the two types of disablement, there can be no confusion as to the causation of the condition. The point is brought out by the writer that whereas industrial accidents are generally brought about swiftly, time is a factor in occupational diseases, a considerable number of years often elapsing before exposure to a harmful substance shows its effects. Although time is often the deciding factor as between an accident and a disease it is not invariably so, as, for example, failure to provide sufficient ventilation for men engaged in filling silos might result in their receiving a sufficient amount of the carbon dioxide gas generated by the green corn to cause death from oxygen deprivation. In such a case, although as much as one-half hour might elapse before death, the fatality should be regarded as due not to an occupational disease but to an occupational accident. Opposition to coverage of occupational diseases in the workmen's compensation acts is frequently based on the fact that the causation of many conditions is more or less obscure and complicated by a variety of factors, while many members of compensation boards believe that true occupational diseases are rare. This is an erro neous belief, in Doctor McCord's opinion, for in practically every trade, industry, or profession there are one or many opportunities for bodily harm other than accidents. Examples of occupational diseases, showing the insidious way in which they may develop, include the "ganglia" or lumps which develop on the backs of the hands of cutters in the tailoring trade, from the use of the heavy shears; the development of a new occupational disease, tularemia, among butchers or among cooks, from handling infected rabbits; the severe bronchial asthma occurring among furriers, from the chemicals used in dyeing furs; occupational retinitis developing among motionpicture operators from watching the intensely bright projection light; and cancer of the skin among workers who treat wood blocks with tar and creosote to render them waterproof, the tar having a "carcinogenetic" action on the skin. These are examples of some of the more unusual types of infection or disease which are liable to occur in the approximately 7,000 trades or processes which are followed in this country as a means of livelihood. Not all of these trades, of course, have occupational disease hazards associated with the occupations or processes, but a very high percentage do have associated hazards. The writer believes that compensability for industrial diseases should be limited to "characteristic" occupational diseases. Pneumonia developing in a workman engaged in a process conducive to respiratory irritation could not usually be classed as an occupational disease from the fact that in most cases it may be traced to other etiologic factors, but pneumonoconiosis developing in a worker from the inhalation of a trade dust should be regarded as a "characteristic" occupational disease. The same thing is true of arthritis which, although it may be induced in different trade processes, still does not have characteristic features which differentiate it from cases arising outside of the occupation. Doctor McCord states, therefore, that in his belief, compensation for occupational disease disability should be limited to "those pathologic states that exhibit features characteristically related to particular kinds of employment.” One of the greatest handicaps in securing appropriate legislation he considers is the general lack of training among physicians in the field of industrial hygiene. This results often in unwarranted claims for compensation being pressed with the help of the physician, with the result that an injustice is done and the compensation movement is to that extent discredited. A proper conduct of claims adjustment, he says, calls for the services of physicians highly trained in this special branch of medicine. It appears true that occupational diseases are on the increase, and as evidence of this fact the experience of one State, Ohio, is cited. According to official reports, it is said, the scheduled occupational diseases show an average increase of 71 per cent per annum, and the nonscheduled occupational diseases show an average increase of 997 per cent per annum when a comparison is made between the past. two years and the previous five years. In conclusion Doctor McCord says: "It is to be hoped that legislative assemblies may know more about the insidiously developing occupational diseases and the injustice that will be perpetuated if this increasing source of industrial disability is further ignored." Compensation for Silicosis HE fact that silicosis has such a long period of latency and chronicity has made it a difficult disease to deal with from the standpoint of compensation. In view of the proposed plan of the British Home Office of granting compensation for death and total disability from silicosis in all industries in which it is a hazard, the status of compensation for the disease in the British Dominions is discussed in an editorial in the Lancet (London), September 15, 1928. South Africa, where the hazard of silicosis was present in the Rand gold mines, is said to have been the first country to compensate for this disease, and the compensation system in that country has become closely interlocked with the system of prevention. Under the compensation plan any miner on the Rand who develops ordinary pulmonary tuberculosis is suspended from employment in order to protect the other workers from infection, and he receives compensation. South Africa and New South Wales, in relation to the county of Cumberland and to the Broken Hill mines, are said. to be ahead of England in their systems of compensation for silicosis as are also the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and Ontario. scheme of compensation was applied in England to the small refractories industries in 1918, but it was not extended to any other industry until 1927, when it was granted to metal miners. At the present time a scheme for compensation in the pottery industry1 is in preparation, but action along this line is slow and in the meantime, it is stated, men are succumbing to this occupational hazard in such industries as stone masonry, granite cutting, quarrying, and metal mining, without receiving any compensation. The British Home Office has now abruptly abandoned its plan of extending compensation for silicosis to one industry at a time, and has issued a comprehensive draft scheme for granting compensation for death and total disability in practically every occupation in which a silica risk is present. In addition to the industries named above, workers employed in driving hard headings or sinking shafts through sandstone rocks in coal mines are to be included, as are also millstone builders and abrasive soap makers. Under the new plan periodical medical examinations will no longer be required nor will workers in the initial stages of the disease be retired with compensation. Compensation is to be awarded only for total disability or death, but it is the plan to study each industry for the purpose of linking up preventive procedure with compensation awards. This procedure, it is considered, will lead rapidly to limitation of the silica hazard. The plan is expected to have an indirect economic effect, as it is considered probable that the use of sandstone for building purposes is likely to cease, and that the costs on some building operations will, therefore, be increased, but it is not expected that unemployment will result, as substitute products-bricks, cement, and limestone are all home products. 1 See Labor Review, November, 1928, p. 67. TH Recent Workmen's Compensation Reports Iowa HE eighth biennial report of the Workmen's Compensation Service of Iowa, covering the period ending June 30, 1928, contains recommendations by the industrial commissioner, a financial report, and the decisions of the Department of Workmen's Compensation. An interesting recommendation found in the report is applicable to many States which have compulsory or elective laws but which have provisions so phrased as to prohibit the voluntary acceptance of the workmen's compensation act by employers and employees excluded from the compulsory and elective features of the act. The report states in part as follows: Personal injury on or off the premises of the employer by workmen "engaged in agricultural pursuits or in operation immediately connected therewith" is specifically barred from compensation coverage. In two cases recently arbitrated and reviewed before the industrial commissioner insurance policies have been introduced giving evidence of engagement to cover farm workers but it has been necessary to hold against the claimant. On the part of the general assembly intent is evidently to afford definite and far-reaching exemption to farm operations and kindred pursuits and the statute rather than the insurance policy must be our monitor. In the United States, with rare exception, agricultural employment is not under compensation coverage in a compulsory sense. In some States, however, provision is made for coverage at the option of the employer in agricultural pursuits. Experience leads to the conclusion that the Iowa law could extend its usefulness by permitting farmers voluntarily to come within the jurisdiction of this system by definite election on the part of each individual farmer who desires this relationship. It would seem worth while for the general assembly to consider the provisions of statute in some States to the effect that when insurance policies are made to cover employees in exempted employments such employment shall automatically classify as included in compensation jurisdiction. An illustration of the problem which caused the recommendation to be made is a case cited as follows: The arbitration decision, dated May 14, 1927, holds: "That at the time of the fatal injury suffered by Arthur N. Hagen he was engaged in an ‘agricultural pursuit' within the meaning of the compensation law." The deceased, Arthur N. Hagen, at the time of his fatal injury was under contract with the trustees of the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Waterville, Iowa, for the operation of a threshing machine owned by said trustees and to be employed in threshing grain for many farmers in the vicinity of Makee Township, Allamakee County. August 7, 1926, while starting the engine supplying power to this threshing machine, Hagen sustained injuries which caused his death August 20, 1926. It would appear from the record that in July of 1926 a policy of insurance was issued by this defendant insurer to the aforesaid board of trustees specifically covering the employment in which the husband of this claimant lost his life. It furthermore appears that this policy was issued with the distinct understanding on the part of the assured, at least, that they would be protected against any injuries arising out of this employment. It is the contention of counsel that this contract of insurance is binding upon the Fidelity & Casualty Co., any exceptions or exemptions in the compensation law of the State of Iowa to the contrary notwithstanding. While this proposition would seem to be morally sound, it is utterly without support in the statute. Under the holding of the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, there would seem to be no ground for the consideration of any qualification whatever of the statutory provision placing agricultural pursuits in the class of employments exempted from compensation coverage. It is so held distinctly in Slyeord v. Horn, 162 N. W. 253; also in Oliphant v. Hawkinson, 183 N. W. 805. Hillman v. Eighmy et al., 208 N. W. 928, is submitted in support of claimant's contention. Subsection 3 of section 102.05 of the Wisconsin statute provides: "3. Any employer who shall enter into a contract for the insurance of the compensation provided for in sections 102.03 to 102.35, inclusive, or against liability therefor, shall be deemed thereby to have elected to accept the provisions of sections 102.03 to 102.35, and such election shall include farm laborers and domestic servants if such intent is clearly shown by the terms of the policy." This statutory provision makes the Wisconsin decision cited wholly consistent, in fact absolutely necessary, but the said decision is of no value whatever in this case because the Iowa statute contains no such provision as that quoted or any provision upon which such holding could be based. It therefore becomes necessary to hold that, since the fatal injury of the deceased Hagen occurred in employment excluded from compensation coverage, no further consideration can be given this claim by the Iowa industrial commissioner. The arbitration decision is affirmed. Pending in district court. (Hagen v. Hagen et al, p. 122.) Rhode Island IN 1927 the Rhode Island workmen's compensation act allowed employers and injured employees to reach an agreement in regard to compensation under the act, and provided that such agreement should be approved by the commissioner of labor and that any such agreement so approved should be enforceable by a suitable action or proceeding brought by either of the parties in the superior court. was further provided that if the employer and employee failed to reach an agreement in regard to compensation under the act or if the commissioner of labor failed to approve any agreement, either employer or employee or, in case of death, the dependents entitled to compensation, could file in the office of the "clerk of the superior court having jurisdiction of the matter" a petition setting forth the facts necessary and proper for the information of the court, which court decided the merits of the controversy. The report of the commissioner of labor made to the General Assembly of Rhode Island for the year 1927 contains the following statement: There were 52 petitions filed in the superior court in the year 1927; of this number, 33 asked for the payment of compensation, 8 were filed by doctors to recover for services, 3 by employers for relief, 5 for commutation of future payments, and 3 for the determination of the method of paying compensation. In the course of the year the department rendered assistance in the settlement of many cases that otherwise would have resulted in court action. This service is voluntary and effective only in cases where both claimant and employer, or those representing him, are willing to make use of it. Several small claims coming to the attention of the department were abandoned for the reason that court action would involve expense out of proportion to the amount involved. It is reasonable to believe that some of these claims have merit and should be compensated, but fail by reason of the fact that our present plan of procedure is too expensive. A modern simple procedure is recommended to correct this weakness of the law. The Rhode Island Legislature in 1928 amended the procedure for the settlement of disputes in compensation cases in Rhode Island by providing that if the employer and employee failed to reach an agreement or if the commissioner of labor failed to approve any agreement, the employer or employee or in case of death, a dependent entitled to compensation, may file in the office of the commissioner of labor a petition setting forth the facts necessary and proper for his information, and that the commissioner of labor shall hear witnesses and in a summary manner shall decide the merits of the controversy. |