The CHAIRMAN. I ask for information: How much better off would that employee be if the employer were obliged to furnish a panel of physicians under those circumstances?

Mr. CHLOPEK. In that case, the deputy commissioner would ask the employer to furnish a panel of five physicians in the several districts where he was doing work.

The CHAIRMAN. This does not say so.

Mr. CHLOPEK. In New York, the employer may have a pier in New York, one in Brooklyn, and one in Staten Island, one in Hoboken, and all around that territory. Under our proposal, we ask for a panel of not more than five physicians

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Would you have to have a panel in each place?

Mr. CHLOPEK. We say a man in each district.

Referring to clinics, there is what we term in New York, “slaughter houses," where some of the employers, who believe in the dollar being better than human life, under contract with these "slaughter houses," do take care of injured employees; and employees will go to those places day after day for treatment and be told to "come back to-morrow"" come back this afternoon"; and they will go there three or four times before they get any attention.

Now, those are the kind of things we are trying to remedy, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of this committee. The panel system, as we proposed in this bill, is one of the fairest proposals that could be drafted, absolutely protecting the legitimate and honest employer, and it does not interfere with the employer who wants to be honest and fair with his employees.

But we surely are entitled to see that, where a man has been injured, and especially if he has been seriously injured, that he gets that first aid, which goes a long way toward reducing the cost of maintaining compensation.

Mr. SUMNERS. May I ask a question in that connection? Does the interest of the employer in getting his employee able to resume work as quickly as possible in any degree tend to overcome the objections which you have just urged?

Mr. CHLOPEK. I did not understand that question.

Mr. SUMNERS. Does the financial interest of the employer in getting his employee able to resume work as quickly as possible tend materially in your judgment to overcome the objections which you have just urged?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

Mr. SUMNERS. Under what conditions would it not

Mr. SUMNERS. Under what conditions would it not? I am interesting in knowing that. I am not familiar with that situation. Mr. CHLOPEK. In many cases, it is under contract; the employer will contract with an institution at so much a year to take care of the employees. His interest stops there.

Mr. SUMNERS. Now, does his interest stop there? I am asking for information; you know all about it and I do not. Does his interest stop there? Is he not interested in making a contract with somebody who would be efficient and get that man back on the job as quickly as possible, and relieve him as quickly as possible of

having to pay out money to a person who is not engaged in performing service for him?

Mr. CHLOPEK. As I said, there are some employers who aid in every way; others again will try to evade the law and to contract with an institution, and to prevent damage suits in that way.

Mr. SUMNERS. Let me ask you this question: Do you regard it as more valuable to the employee to have the employers preserve the organization of their staff-or whatever surgical institutions they have do you regard the preservation of that organization as more valuable or less valuable to your men than the furnishing of this I panel of five physicians?

Mr. CHLOPEK. When we shall receive adequate and honest professional services, we will highly commend that employer; but where that service is indifferent, then we have the right to file a complaint and the man is changed.

Mr. SUMNERS. May I ask you one other question, and then I am through? Would you regard it as worth considering, in the formation of this bill, or would it be at all feasible, to leave the employees of a given employer the question of whether they would prefer the preservation of an organization such as has been indicated here, or the furnishing to them in lieu of that of a panel of five physicians? Have you thought about that?

Mr. CHLOPEK. No; I have not.

Mr. SUMNERS. Well, would it be feasible?

Mr. CHLOPEK. I do not know.

Mr. SUMNERS. That is all.

Mr. BOWLING. I would like to ask a question. You used a phrase a moment ago, a fourth of which I did not comprehend. You referred to certain institutions or organizations, whatever they are as "slaughter houses." What is that?

Mr. CHLOPEK. That is where a man is injured, and after being order to report to this so-called "slaughter house," he is given his appointment, say, for 10 o'clock this morning. He goes up there at 10 o'clock; and they say, "We have got no time. Come back at 2 o'clock this afternoon." He comes back at 2 o'clock. And they say, "We have got no time; come back at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning." We are too busy to attend to you now."

Mr. BOWLING. Well, is that slaughter house a medical clinic?
Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes, it is.

Mr. BOWLING. Or is it the office of a physician?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes; it is.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Is it a reputable hospital?

Mr. CHLOPEK. There are a number of institutions

Mr. MONTAGUE (interposing). Is it a reputable hospital?

Mr. CHLOPEK. I do not consider it so. They are private institutions, and the business of the employer is solicited by such institutions.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Well, have you got any evidence of that, or is that just a wild statement.

Mr. CHLOPEK. That is not a wild statement. I had one of the gentlemen who is the head of one of these outfits personally come to me and soliciting my support in behalf of his institution."

Mr. MONTAGUE. You used that phrase and I wanted to get down to the gist of the matter and find out what it was.

Mr. CHLOPEK. He came to me and wanted to use my influence with the stevedoring company to turn the business over to him. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Brown, you may resume.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Mr. Ryan wants to say a few words, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I think we have heard all that we care to hear on this particular point. We will never get through if we proceed at this rate; this is a bill of nearly 50 pages, and we must make some progress.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown, you may resume your statement now.

STATEMENT OF 0. G. BROWN-Resumed

Mr. BROWN. I will proceed as rapidly as I can, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We just want you to cover the points in dispute, and give the reasons why they are in dispute.

Mr. BROWN. I will go through them just as quickly as I can.

On page 10, lines 7, 8, 9, and 10, we have agreed to insert, after the word" increase," in line 9, the following:

66

'During the period of disability."

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you have got a note here on that page marked "X"; that goes out, does it? A note that is written in the margin, and then the note is crossed out?

Mr. BROWN. That should remain crossed out, because it is taken care of on page 18.

The CHAIRMAN. I will cross it out then.

Mr. BROWN. I will pass to page 11. There is no agreement on this proposition. You will note that the bill as drawn provides:

In case of disability, partial in character but permanent in quality, the compensation shall be 66% per centum of the average weekly wages, and shall be paid to the employee first for the period of temporary total disability resulting from the date of injury and then in addition for the period named in this subdivision.

Then follows the schedule. Now, that schedule is lifted complete from the New York law; and it is about as high a schedule as can be found anywhere, I think, in view of the weekly limits; and it was contemplated when that schedule was studied that it also included the average healing period.

However, some two years ago a legislative committee there made a study of the situation, and in view of the fact that there were some cases where a temporary disability was suffered for a long time-beyond even the period of the specified loss-they therefore conceived the scheme of arriving at an average healing period, which was put into the law.

Now, that was left out in this bill. We would like to have it inserted, and the copy which you have before you, Mr. Chairman, contains it. It is rather lengthy.

The CHAIRMAN. I have got the notes here.

Mr. BROWN. And I will refer to it as being on page 47 of this pamphlet of the New York law, subdivision 4-a, which I will submit to the committee. I will, therefore, pass that.

On page 12 of the bill, line 2, subdivision 13, there is provision for loss of hearing, as follows:

Compensation for loss of hearing of one ear, 52 weeks. Compensation for loss of both ears, 200 weeks.

We have no objection to the loss of hearing of both ears being compensated. We think it is possible to make a determination of what is loss of hearing of both ears, a reasonable determination of that, and compensate it. And there are not so many of those cases.

But this proposition of trying to compensate for the loss of hearing for one ear is new and untried and unsuccessful; and this same legislative committee in New York studied the proposition for some time, and examined a number of physicians, and determined that it was of such a dangerous character that they did not want to put it into the law, because it let down the bars and gave too much opportunity for malingering; and the doctors themselves testified that there was no opportunity of making a proper test where they could be sure of their test, of a man who claimed a loss of hearing in one ear. Of course, a man would be paid for any disability he sustained in any accident, irrespective of that. But it is very rare that a man has lost his hearing in one ear.

Now, it is particularly dangerous with reference to this provision as to partial loss of hearing.

Now, I noticed that Mr. Chlopek could not hear the gentleman over there [indicating] when he attempted to answer a question. I think that if Mr. Chlopek, under the liberal terms of this bill, should be working and have some claim for a very slight accident, and go to a doctor and be examined, they would give him compensation for loss of hearing of one ear, irrespective of whether his head was hurt or not, because it occurred in the course of his employment. It is a very dangerous proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. What you object to there is fixing the specific compensation for the loss of hearing in one ear?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; on the ground that

The CHAIRMAN (interposing.) Any disability that is found will be taken care of?

Mr. BROWN. Any disability that is found will be taken care of under the provision.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, will you turn to page 13?

Mr. BROWN. Page 13, at the end of subdivision 21, between lines 14 and 15 is the place where we would suggest that the healing period which I mentioned before be inserted,

The CHAIRMAN. That is a copy of the New York statute?

Mr. BROWN. That is a copy of the New York provision on that subject.

Now, in line 15 on the same page, we have no objection to the words "Any sum due, under an award made to a claimant under subdivision c, excepting subdivision c-21, shall in case of death arising from causes other than the injury be payable to and for the benefit of the persons following."

That is, after the award is made, we think it is perfectly right that it should be paid to the family of the deceased person, when he died from other causes.

But we object to the words in line 15, "Or which will become due, had the employee lived." We do not think it is proper to charge an industry to pay a sum which will become due had the employee lived; because you may pay a pension for a period of 42 years over to a family for an injury that a man sustained, when he died from natural causes a short time after the injury was sustained.

It is a very wide extension of any provision that is contained in: the New York law, or, I think, in any of the other laws, and is a. dangerous provision. We have no objection to the payment of any sum due up to the time of death; but we do not want to pay for a period of time that he might have lived-40 or 50 years, or whatever it may be over to his family as a life pension to them.

Now, on page 14, lines 13 to 19, subdivision e, providing temporary partial disability, we had suggested that a limitation be put upon that in order to get away from probable malingering, of $3,500 › in amount, which accords with the New York statute; but last night at our late conference, the other side suggested a five-year limitation to be put on it.

We see no real objection to that. It will amount to twice $3,500,, nearly; but there is more fairness to it than there is to the $3,500; and I think we ought to agree to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the language which has been added at the end of subdivision e, "but shall not exceed in total $3,500" comes out of the agreement?

Mr. BROWN. That should come out, yes, sir; that is, the words "In total, $3,500" should come out. But I think there was some appropriate language placed in the copy you have to change that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; as changed the amendment would read, "But shall not be paid for a period exceeding five years?" Mr. BROWN. That is all right.

Now, on page 16, subdivision b, line 17, we think that the 35 per cent should be reduced to 30 per cent, to accord with the New York. statute on that subject. That is a very great increase over the schedule, even with 5 per cent in the total expenses.

I turn now to page 18, and suggest that here is the place we would like to put in, if it is not already shown in your copy-I think it isthe agreed limitation which we arrived at last night, upon the wage: to be considered in computing the death cases.

The New York statute says that any excess of wages from $150 a.. month shall not be considered. We suggested that to the other side, and they came back with the suggestion that they would make it $37.50 per week, which we agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see if I get that right. That would be. subdivision f, would it not, on page 18?

Mr. BROWN. Yes; that would be f.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that comes in after line 10?

Mr. BROWN. After line 12, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you are right. That would read as follows:

f. In computing death benefits the average weekly wages of the deceased shall be considered to have been not more than $37.50 nor less than $12, but the total weekly compensation shall not exceed the weekly wages of the deceased.

Now, that you have agreed to?

Mr. BROWN. That is right; that is agreed upon.

The CHAIRMAN. I find a clause marked here in red, headed “f” and saying "Aliens' compensation under this chapter," etc.

Mr. BROWN. That is a clause which we proposed and which we now urge; a clause with reference to alien beneficiaries.