Widow living apart from Husband but receiving Support. A widow living apart but receiving support from her husband at the time of his injury was awarded compensation. (Archambault v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd.)

Widow not receiving Support. Child receiving Support. Child a Partial Dependent. A widow separated from her husband and not receiving any support from him was held not to be a dependent. Their child, living with her mother, and receiving an average of $2 a week, was held to be partially dependent to the extent of this contribution by her father. (Bentley v. Massachusetts Employees Insurance Association.1) Incapacity for Work. A number of cases are reported covering the payment of compensation under sections 9 and 10, Part II. of the act. These sections provide that the injured employee shall receive one-half his average weekly wages during his total incapacity for work, but not more than $10 nor less than $4 a week for a period not to exceed five hundred weeks, the maximum payment provided being $3,000. For partial incapacity provision is made for the payment of one-half the difference between the average weekly wages which the employee earned before the injury and the average weekly wages which he is able to earn thereafter, but not more than $10 a week for a period not to exceed three hundred weeks from the date of the injury.

Additional Compensation. -Section 11, Part II., provides that, in case of certain specified injuries, "the amounts hereinafter named shall be paid, in addition to all other compensation." Thus, if an employee receives an injury specified in this section, he is entitled to a weekly payment on account of any incapacity which may result from this injury, and to the additional weekly payments named in said sections.

Right to postpone Payment of Compensation denied. - The right of an insurer to postpone the payment of "additional" compensation, pending the result of an operation for the restoration of the vision to an injured eye, came up in the case of Bronzetti v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and it was held that the insurer did not have this right, compensation being ordered paid in accordance with the section

1 Appealed to Supreme Judicial Court.

"for a period of fifty weeks," dating from the day of the injury.

Injury to Eye makes it impossible to use Correcting Lens and obtain Simultaneous Vision. Section 11 (b), Part II., provides for the payment of an additional weekly compensation of half wages for a period of fifty weeks for "the reduction to one-tenth of normal vision in either eye with glasses." In Latak v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., the employee received an injury which necessitated an operation for the removal of the lens of the left eye. By reason of the removal of the lens the vision became so blurred and its image out of alignment with the uninjured eye that the employee got no more vision, when wearing glasses, in the injured eye than if he were not wearing glasses. The operated eye, with a correcting glass, gave him a vision of four-tenths of normal; without a glass, three two-hundredths of normal. The weight of the medical evidence showed that this vision of four-tenths of normal was only practicable in the event of the employee losing his sound eye, and that it was impossible to wear a correcting lens and obtain simultaneous vision with the other eye. Held, that the vision of the employee, with the use of glasses in the injured eye, is three two-hundredths of the normal, and additional compensation is awarded.

Common Law or Compensation. An employee may not claim his right of action at common law and later claim under the statute.

Independent Contractor. In Cheevers v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland1 it was held that an independent contractor that is, a person who was injured while driving his own team, although working for a coal dealer was not entitled to compensation.

An em

Letter does not constitute an Election to proceed. ployee, through his counsel, as reported in McGaffigan v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, sent a letter to the Boston Elevated Railway Company, claiming damages on account of a personal injury caused by the negligence of one of its employees, and filed a claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board later. Suit was subsequently brought,

1 Appealed to Supreme Judicial Court.

the court dismissing the action on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. Afterwards the employee requested a hearing before a committee of arbitration to decide his claim under the statute. Held, that the letter to the Boston Elevated was not an election to proceed, and that the employee is entitled to compensation under the act.

Casual Employment claimed in Case of Employment of Waiter to serve at Regular Occupation at a Banquet. A question of "casual employment" was raised in the case of Gaynor v. Standard Accident Insurance Company.1 The employers, a firm of caterers, did not have any regular waiters in their employ, engaging men who followed that occupation regularly, as the occasion arose. While serving in his usual capacity as a waiter at a banquet the employee received a personal injury from which he died. Held, that his employment was not casual and that his widow was entitled to compensation.

Question of Casual Employment. The same question was raised in the case of an employee who had been informed that he "might get through to-night, you might not for a week, or two or three days," and it was held that he was not a casual employee. (Grogan v. Frankfort General Insurance Company.) Signing of Release by Employee does not deprive Widow of Right to Compensation. The Industrial Accident Board held in the case of Cripps v. Ætna Life Insurance Company,1 that the right of a widow to compensation was entirely separate from that of her husband, and that the signing of a release at common law by him, prior to his death, does not operate to deprive her of her claim to compensation under the act.

Impartial Physicians assist in obtaining Necessary Medical Facts. Impartial physicians have been called upon by the Board, as shown in many cases reported, and have been of great assistance to the members in aiding them in coming to a decision in cases where the medical facts were in dispute.

Care taken by Members of the Board to ascertain Exact Facts. The care taken by members of the Board to ascertain the exact facts is shown in many of the cases; as, for example, in the case of Nelson v. Employers' Liability Assurance Cor

1 Appealed to Supreme Judicial Court.

poration, Ltd., in which the evidence introduced at the morning hearing before the committee of arbitration showed that the employee was clearly not entitled to compensation. A trip down the harbor, in a tug furnished at the request of the insurer by the employing corporation, and a visit to fellow employees working on several dredgers, proved the truth of the employee's claim, and compensation was accordingly awarded.

Average Weekly Wages of Employee who worked only a Short Time. In Regan v. Travelers Insurance Company the average weekly wages of the employee were determined by obtaining a statement of the wages earned by a fellow employee, equally competent, who was "employed by the same employer, in the same grade." This was necessary on account of the shortness of time during which the claimant had been working for her employer.

No Right to deduct Additional Compensation. — In Nichols v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd.,1 it was held that the insurer did not have the right to deduct from the compensation due the widow the additional compensation paid the employee before death on account of the "loss by severance" of a finger.

The Board recommends that the Legislature authorize the publication of the cases passed upon by committees of arbitration, the Industrial Accident Board and the Supreme Judicial Court, during the year ending June 30, 1913, as a public document.

1 Appealed to Supreme Judicial Court.

SAFETY AND HEALTH PROMOTION.

Safety and health for the wage earner means steady support for his family, education for his children and comforts that the family would otherwise be deprived of or never know.

New conditions have arisen in the industrial life of America, conditions that make for progress and a better understanding between employee and employer. We are learning that we are our brother's keeper in more ways than one. The Industrial

Accident Board has found that under the Workmen's Compensation Act employers are as anxious to see that their employees receive all the benefits that they are entitled to as are the workmen themselves.

The truth of the often-quoted saying that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is being established by those industries that have established well-organized and systematic campaigns of safety, thus doing remarkable service in the conservation of the human life. The last five years have seen some notable improvement and development along these lines. It is not the intention to place any grievous burden on employers in asking them to comply with safety and health requirements. In many, if not in most, cases safety devices can be largely made in the workshop of the employer or by a carpenter or a sheet-iron worker, while improved health conditions mean a better and a larger output for the employer. The expense is hardly to be thought of when the results to be obtained are considered. Safety and health of his employees mean for the employer the continuous service of trained employees, thus preventing waste of material and a shortage in output. In every instance where it has been faithfully tried, the employers would never consent to return to their old-time methods, where carelessness, improper conditions, unguarded machinery, poor light, poor ventilation and poor sanitary conditions all spelled waste with capital letters.

By the reduction in the number of accidents and a lessening of their severity, hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums, now paid because of present conditions, will be