Miscellaneous injuries for which compensation awarded

although the injured person may be still disabled by the illness or some other cause wholly unrelated to the accident. Mack v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd.

9. Re-current attacks of industrial disease.

Where a workman had had two attacks of an industrial disease but after recovery from the second one his employers refused to continue the employment on account of a likelihood of an occurrence of the disease, it was found that there was no evidence that the man's tendency to the disease was due to his previous attacks as opposed to his natural tendency to this disease, and that therefore there was no evidence that his incapacity resulted from having had the attack of disease when at work, and compensation was refused. Jones v. New Brynmally Colliery Co. (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 375. In the last mentioned case the court distinguished the case of Thomas v. Fairbairn, Lawson & Co. (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 195.

10. Miscellaneous injuries for which compensation awarded.

A workman was injured on a punch press and lost the index finger of his right hand at the distal joint. The commission found that the applicant had been totally disabled for four weeks and partially disabled thereafter for six weeks, and that at the end of this period he was able to resume work without decrease of wages. Compensation was awarded in the sum of $30 for total disability and $22.50 for partial disability. William Dvorak v. Stamping & Tool Co., Wis. Indus. Com., March 5, 1913.

Compensation was granted where it appeared that the workman had suffered "severe straining of lumbar muscles and bruising of the third and fourth vertebrae." Gross v. Marshall Butters Lumber Co., Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd., Oct. 15, 1913; The Indicator, Oct. 20, 1913, at page 417.

Double compensation

The applicant, a metal polisher, received injuries to the back of his right hand by coming in contact with an emery wheel. A physician named by the Commission to make an examination reported that the workman could resume work 22 weeks after the date of the accident. The employer had paid compensation for a period of 7 weeks, when the workman resumed work in another department of the employer's plant. At the time of the accident he was earning $3.80 a day, while in the new employment he earned $3 a day. The commission held that the employer should pay to the applicant $3.12 a week until the period of partial disability ended, the amount being based upon 65% of the loss of earnings. Richard Stegman v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Wis. Indus. Com., Apr. 22, 1913.

The applicant sustained injury while operating a punch press, necessitating disability period of twenty-two weeks and permanent partial disability thereafter. At the time of the accident his average annual wages were $750. Compensation was awarded by stipulation, amounting to $581.80 besides medical expenses. Re John Liggett v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., Dec. Wis. Indus. Com., Jan. 23, 1913.

ARTICLE F-MISCELLANEOUS CASES

1. Double compensation.

Where an employé was injured by reason of serious and wilful misconduct of a person exercising superintendence in that the employé was required to operate a machine which was known to be in a dangerous condition, it was held that this was such wilful misconduct on the part of the employer as entitled the employé to double compensation within the meaning of Part II, § 3, of the Massachusetts Act. Allen v. Globe Indemnity Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd.

An employé was injured by reason of a cave-in. The evidence showed that the upper crust of the sand bank where the employé was working was cut at regular intervals, this being the only practical way to prevent a cave-in. It

Deducting insurance benefits to which employes contribute

appeared that it was customary to have men on hand whose duty it was to perform this work and that only through an error in human calculation was the overhanging crust allowed to remain for a sufficient time to cause the injury. It was held that the injury was not due to the serious and wilful misconduct on the part of the employer within the meaning of Part II, § 3 of the Massachusetts Act, and the employé was not entitled to double compensation. Devine v. Contractors Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd.

2. Deducting insurance benefits to which employés contribute,

In reply to a question whether, if a mutual insurance association was maintained in an establishment to which the employés contributed a certain percentage, what benefits would accrue to the employés under the Compensation Act, the Board replied as follows: "It is the present opinion of the Industrial Accident Board that the employés would be entitled to the full benefit under the compensation law in addition to all they may receive through a mutual company. Part II, § 13. 'No savings or insurance of the injured employé, nor any contribution made by him to any benefit fund or protective association independent of this act shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid hereinunder, nor shall benefits derived through any other source than those paid by the employer as herein provided be considered in fixing the compensation under this act."" Mich. Indus. Acc. Bd.

Many of the statutes contain specific provisions that no such deductions shall be made.

Arizona

ARTICLE G-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS STATUTES

ARIZONA

"§ 72. When an injury is received by a workman engaged in any labor or service specified in the third section of this chapter, and for which the employer is made liable as specified L. 1912, 2d Ses., in the seventh 2 section hereof, then the measure and amount of compensation to be made by the employer to such workman or his personal representative for such injuries, shall be as follows:

Art. 14, § 8.

"§ 1. If the injury by accident does not result in death within six months from the date of the accident, but does produce or result in total incapacity of the workman for work at any gainful employment for more than two (2) weeks after the accident then the compensation to be made to such workman by this employer shall be a semi-monthly payment commencing from the date of the accident, and continuing during such total incapacity, of a sum equal to fifty (50) per centum of the workman's average semi-monthly earnings when at work on full time during the preceding year, if he shall have been in the employment of such employer for such length of time; but if not for a full year, then fifty (50) per centum of the average wages, whether semi-monthly, weekly, or daily, being earned by such workman during the time he was at work for his employer before and at the time of the accident.

"§ 2. In case (1) the accident does not wholly incapacitate the workman from the same or other gainful employment; or (2) in case the workman, being at first wholly incapacitated, thereafter recovers so as to be able to engage at labor in the same or other gainful employment, thereby earning wages, then in each case the amount of the semi-monthly payment shall be one-half of the difference between the average earnings of the workmen at the time of the accident determined as above provided, and the average amount he is earning, or

This refers to § 67 of the Act of 1913. It was § 3 of the Act of 1912. This is § 67 of the Act of 1913. It is § 7 of the Act of 1912.

California

is capable of earning, thereafter, semi-monthly in the same or other employment-it being the intent and purpose of this chapter, that the semi-monthly payments shall not exceed, but equal, from time to time one-half the difference between the amount of average earnings ascertained as aforesaid at the time of the accident, and the average amount which the workman is earning, or is capable of earning, in the same or other employment or otherwise, after the accident and at the time of such semi-monthly payment. Such payments shall cease upon the workman recovering and earning, or being capable of earning, in the same or other gainful employment or otherwise, wages equal to the amount being earned at the time of the accident.

"Provided, however, that the payments shall continue to be made as herein determined to the workman so long as incapacity to earn wages in the same or other employment continues, but in no case shall the total amount of such payments as provided in sub-sections 1 and 2 of this section exceed four thousand ($4000.00) Dollars.

CALIFORNIA 1

"§ 15. Where liability for compensation under this act exists such compensation shall be furnished or paid by the employer and be as provided in the following schedule:

1 A number of California cases will be found under their proper classifications in the preceding pages. Those which follow arose under special provisions of the California statute or were such as were determined on their peculiar facts and could not well be classified topically.

Applicant not subject to the compensation provisions of the law of 1911 because employer had not accepted compensation for thirty days prior to the injury to Brackrog's right eye. Expenses of medical treatment were paid by employer. Brackrog v. Macaulay Foundry Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., Sept. 4, 1913.

Applicant was lifting slabs of marble off the ground and injured his

The omitted portion refers to medical attention and the waiting period. See Chapters VIII and IX,