The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W . B. WILSON, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES)
BUREAU OF LABO R S T A T IS T IC S )
W O R K M E N ’ S INSURANCE
AND
\T
07C
................. I l O . Z l D
COMPENSATION
SERIES
COMPARISON OF WORKMEN’ S COMPEN
SATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA UP TO JANUARY 1, 1920
By CARL HOOKSTADT
SEPTEMBER, 1920
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1920
CONTENTS.
PAET I.— UNITED STATES.
Page.
I ntroduct ion ................................... *...................................................................................
5-12
History of compensation legislation.
...................................................... ........
5-S
Tendencies in legislation.........................................................................................
8-12
Compensation and insurance systems........ .................................................................. 12-18
Scope of the laws......... ................................................................................................... 18-38
Hazardous employments.......................................................................................... 21, 22
Numerical exemptions............................................................................................. 22. 23
Agriculture..................................................................................................................
23
Domestic service..................................... ..................... ............................................
24
Public em ployees......................................................................................................
24
Casual la b or.............. ................................................................................................ 24, 25
Employments not for gain....................................................................................... 2bT26
26
Extraterritoriality.....................................................................................................
Miscellaneous exemptions.................................................... ........................... .
2$
Interstate and foreign com m erce............................ .................................... ..... ... 26-29
Number of persons subject to compensation acts............................................... 29-38
How election is made....................................................................................................... 38, 39
Abrogation of defenses............................. ........................................................................
39
Suits for damages............................................................................................................... 39-41
Special contracts................................................................................................................
42
Burden of cost.................................................................................................................... 42, 43
Security of payments........................................................................................................ 44, 45
Insurance ratesjand reserves........................................................................................... 45-48
Merit rating.................... ........................................................................................... 47, 48
Injuries covered.......................................................................... .................................... 48-57
Accidents versus injuries......................................................................................... 50, 51
Occupational diseases............................................................................................... 51-55
Arising out of and in the course of employm ent................................................ 55, 56
Exemptions due to employee’s fault.....................................................................v
56
Penalty for negligence.............................................................................................. 56, 57
Waiting period..................................... ............................................................................. 57-59
Compensation benefits...................................................................................................... 59-90
Scale.............................................................................................................................. 60-63
Per cent of wages......................................................................................................
64
Weekly maximum and minim um................................................ ........................
64
Death............................................................................................................................ 65-68
Remarriage of w i d o w s ................................................................................... 66,67
Additional payments in case of death..........................................................
68
Permanent total disability....................................................................................... 68, 69
Partial disability........................................................................................................ 69-74
Disfigurement.....................................................................................................
70
Second injuries....................................................................................... ........... 71-74
Rehabilitation............................................................... ....................................
74
3
4
CONTENTS.
Compensation benefits— Concluded,
Page.
Comparison of partial disability schedules.......................................................... 74-90
Adequacy of partial disability schedules..................................................... 77-79
Relative severity of upper and lower limb injuries................................... 79-81
Foreign schedules............................................................................................... 81-85
Eye injury schedules........................................................................................ 85-88
Present schedules largely theoretical.......................................................... 88-90
Medical and surgical service......................................................................................... 90-112
Kind of service................. '........................................................................................ 94-95
Adequacy of medical service................................................................................. 95-98
Selection of physicians.......................................................................................... 98-104
Reasons why employer should select physician..................................... 101-103
Reasons why employee should select physician.................................... 103,104
Contract doctors and establishment hospitals................................................. 104-106
Medical and hospital fees.................................................................................... 106-110
Effect of compensation laws upon income of physicians.............................. 110, 111
Administration—Medical advisers.........................................................................
I ll
Administration by local boards in Washington..............................................I ll, 112
Time for notice and claim...............................................................................................
113
Administrative systems................................................................................................ 114-116
Settlement of compensation cases............................................................................ 116-118
Revision of benefits.......... ...............................................................................................
118
Nonresident alien dependents.................................................................................... 118-120
Lump-sum settlements................................................................................................. 120-122
Accident reporting and accident prevention........................... ............................... 122-125
Accident reporting................................................................................................ 123,124
Accident prevention.................................................................................................
125
Summary comparison................................................................................................... 125-130
Chart................................................................................................................. Facing page 130
PART H.— CANADA.
131
Introduction........... .................... ......................................................................................
Canadian and American laws compared........................... ....................................... 131-133
Compensation and insurance systems....................................................................... 133,134
Scope or coverage.......................................................................................................... 134,135
Accidents and occupational diseases......................................................................... 135,136
Waiting period....................................................................................................................
136
Compensation benefits.................................................................................................. 137,138
Weekly or monthly maximum...............................................................................
137
Death............................................................................................................................
138
Total disability...........................................................................................................
138
Partial disability......................................... ...................................... , .....................
138
Medical service-..................................................... ...........................................................
139
Nonresident alien dependents.................................................................................... 139,140
Administration...................................................................................................................
140
Accident prevention........................................................ .................................................
140
Chart.................................................. .............................................................. Facing page 140
BULLETIN OF THE
U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
WASHINGTON.
n o . 275.
S e p t e m b e r , 1920.
COMPARISON OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
P A R T I —U N IT E D STATES.
INTRODUCTION.
This bulletin, summarizing and comparing the principal features of
the workmen's compensation laws of the United States and Canada,
is a revision of a similar study made in 1917 and published as Bulletin
No. 240. It covers all laws enacted up to January 1, 1920, and
includes for the first time a comparison of the compensation laws of
Canada (see pp. 131 to 140). A digest of the Canadian laws may be
found in the chart following page 140. A brief comparison and con
trast of the principal features of American and Canadian laws is found
on pages 131 to 133.
Since the publication of Bulletin No. 240, 34 States have amended
or supplemented their compensation laws, while 5 States1 have been
added to the list of those having such laws. At present 42 States,
the 2 Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, the insular possession of Porto
Rico, and the Federal Government have workmen's compensation
law^s upon their statute books.2
Several new features have been added in the present volume.
The more important of these are on the following subjects: Occupa
tional diseases; remarriage of widows; second injuries; rehabilitation;
adequacy of partial disability schedules; relative severity of upper
and lower limb injuries; contract doctors and hospitals; and hospital
and medical fees.
HISTORY OF COMPENSATION LEGISLATION.3
Compensation legislation in the United States is of recent origin.
The first permanent State laws were enacted by Washington and
Kansas on March 14, 1911. The first law to become effective, how
1 Alabama, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
2 For the sake of simplicity all jurisdictions except the United States Government will hereafter be
referred to as States.
s For a more complete history of compensation legislation, see Bulletin No. 203 of U. S. Bureau of Labor
•Statistics, pp. 45-50.
6
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
ever, was the one enacted by Wisconsin May 3, 1911, winch took
effect immediately upon ifcs passage. Since then compensation legis
lation has progressed rapidly* 42 States and 3 Territories having
placed such law's upon their statute books/ while the Federal act has
been amended to include all civil employees.
Prior to 1911, however, several States had enacted workmen's
compensation laws which were later declared unconstitutional by
the courts; and in addition voluntary insurance or benefit schemes
had been provided for in a number of States, but these could hardly
be designated compensation laws as now understood. The following
is a brief summary of these early acts:
The first legislation in the United States providing for stated bene
fits payable without suit or proof of negligence was the cooperative
insurance law of Maryland enacted in 1902. This act was of re
stricted application, included only mining, quarrying, railways, and
municipal construction work, and was to be administered by the
State insurance commission. The law was declared unconstitutional,
however, as depriving parties of the right of trial by jury and
conferring on an executive judicial or at least quasi-judicial functions.
The next law within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States was an enactment by the United States Philippine Commission
in 1905, authorizing the continuance ’of wages for a period during
disability, but not exceeding 90 days, in case of injury received by
the employees of the Insular Government in the line of duty.
The Federal Government enacted a limited conpensation law in
1908, but applicable only to certain hazardous employments.
In 1909 Montana enacted a law (effective Oct. 1, 1910) providing
for the maintenance of a State cooperative fund for miners and
4 The following S-tates, etc., have enacted compensation laws:
State.
Approved.
Washington............
Kansas....................
Nevada................. ..
New Jersey..............
California.................
New Hampshire___
Wisconsin..... .........
Illinois.....................
Ohio.........................
Massachusetts.........
Michigan.................
Rhode Island..........
Arizona....................
West Virginia.........
Oregon............ .........
Texas......................
Iowa........................
Nebraska.................
Minnesota...............
Connecticut.............
New York................
Maryland.................
Louisiana................
Wyoming................
Mar. 14,19-11
....... do.............
Mar. 24.1911
Apr.
4,1911
Apr.
8,1911
Apr. 15,1911
May
3, 1911
June 10,1911
June 15,1911
July 28,1911
Mar. 20,1912
Apr. 29,1912
June 8,1912
Feb. 22,1913
Feb. 25,1913
Apr. 16,1913
Apr. 18,1913
Apr. 21,1913
Apr. 24,1913
May 29,1913
Dec. 16,1913
Apr. 16,1914
June 18,1914
Feb. 27,1915
Effective.
Oct.
Jan.
July
July
Sept.
Jan.
May
May
Jan.
July
Sept.
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
July
Sept.
July
July
Oct.
Jan.
July
Nov.
Jan.
Apr.
1.1911
1.1912
1.1911
4.1911
1.1911
1.1912
3*1911
1.1912
1.1912
1.1912
1.1912
1.1912
1 .1912
1.1913
1, im
1.1913
1.1914
17,1913
1.1913
1.1914
1.1914
1 .1914
1.1915
1.1915
State.
Approved.
Missouri.
Alabama.
Mar. 8,1915
....... do.............
Mar. 22,1915
Apr. 1,1915
....... do.............
Apr. 10,1915
Apr. 28,1915
Apr. 29,1915
June 2,1915
Mar. 23,1916
Apr. 13,19*S
Mar, 10,1917
Mar. 13,1917
Mar. 15,1917
Mar. 16,1917
Apr. 2,1917
Mar. 21,1918
Mar. 5,1919
Apr. 15,1919
Apr. 28,1919
Aug. 23,1919
Sept.
1.1915
July
1.1915
Sept.
1.1915
July
1.1915
Jan.
1.1916
Aug.
1.1915
July
1.1915
July 28,1915
Jan.
1.1916
Aug.
1.1916
July
1.1916
June
1.1917
8.1917
June
July
1.1917
Jan.
1.1918
Do.
Jan.
1.1919
Mar.
5.1919
1*1919
July
No-v.
1.1919
1*1920
Jan.
United States.
New act........
Mav 30,1908Sept. 7,1916
Aag.
Sept.
Indiana............
Montana. t.......
Oklahoma........
V ermont..........
Maine...............
Colorado...........
Hawaii.............
Alaska..............
Pennsylvania..
Kentucky........
Porto Rieo___
South Dakota.
New Mexico...
Utah...........
Idaho-...............
D elaw are....—
Virginia...........
North Dakota.
1,1908
7,1916
IN T R O D U C T IO N .
1
laborers in and about the coal mines of the State. Contribution to
the fund was compulsory, employers to pay on the basis of the ton
nage of coal mined, and employees on the basis of their monthly
gross earnings. State officials were to administer the fund, and pay
ments for death and disability were provided for. While compulscry, the act was not exclusive as against injured, workmen, who
were permitted to sue under the employers’ liability law, though
bringing suit forfeited the benefits under this act. This double
obligation imposed upon the employer by the act was held by the
supreme court of the State to invalidate it, though in its essential
features it was held to be a valid exercise of the law-making power.
The next law of this class was enacted by Maryland in 1910 es
tablishing cooperative insurance funds for coal and clay miners of
Allegheny and Garrett counties. This act was repealed by the com
pensation act of 1914.
It will be observed that the foregoing legislation, antedating what
may be called the commission period, was of limited application,
either as to the locality or as to the classes of employees affected,
and also that there appears to have been but little regard as to
whether the benefits provided were at all adequate to the needs of
the workmen. The laws subsequently enacted may be said to be of
general application and have generally been based on the investiga
tions of commissions.
The first of the laws of this class was the elective compensation law
of New York, 1910, followed in the same session by a compulsory
law for hazardous employments. The latter law was declared uncon
stitutional after a very brief term of existence, but after an amend
ment to the constitution a new compulsory law was enacted in 1913.
The real compensation period began in 1911, when 10 States enacted
such laws. Each year since then additional States have fallen in line
until at present^ as already noted, 45 States and Territories have
enacted compensation legislation.
This rapid growth of compensation legislation, involving, as it has,
the almost simultaneous enactment of laws in a number of States,
has operated to prevent the adoption of any one form of law as a
type, so that although a single fundamental principle underlies the
entire group of laws of this class, its expression and.application pre
sent great diversity of details in the different States. This is true
not only of the primary factors of the laws, such as the scope and
the compensation benefits, but also of the system of compensation
insurance, administration, methods of election or rejection, etc.
A comparison of these and other features which may be classed
as of principal rank is essential to any fair understanding of the
relative effectiveness of the laws—a fact which is recognized by
insurance companies in fixing the rates of premium to be charged in
8
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S ,
writing policies to cover the liabilities prescribed by the laws, and is
of no less interest to the employer who is primarily charged with
these liabilities, and to the workman for whose benefit the laws were
enacted.
The compensation States contain approximately 87 per cent of
the persons gainfully employed in the United States and include
practically all of the industrial States. There seems to have been no
causal connection between the need for compensation laws and the
sequence of their enactment. Of the 10 States enacting such laws
in 1911, 3 were manufacturing States on the Atlantic coast, 4 were
agricultural or semi-industrial States in the Mississippi Valley, and
3 were primarily agricultural or mining States west of the Rocky
Mountains. The 7 noncompensation States 5 are primarily agricul
tural, though in most of them manufacturing is x>f considerable and
increasing importance.
TENDENCIES IN LEGISLATION.
Certain provisions of workmen’s compensation lawrs are more sus
ceptible of change and revision than others. The scope of the acts
and the partial disability schedules, for example, have undergone
relatively very little change since their initial enactment, while the
waiting period and particularly the requirements as to medical
service are in a constant state of flux. Compensation commissioners
are not always familiar with the experience and results of compen
sation laws in other States. This unfamiliarity, together with the
human proneness to overvalue those things to which one has been
accustomed, has led many of the commissions not only to prefer
their own type of law but also to consider it superior to all others.
These facts are of especial importance, therefore, to States having
under consideration the adoption of a compensation law. The fol
lowing summary shows some of the more important statutory changes
which have occurred in the 40 States and Territories having had
workmen’s compensation experience.6 A large majority of these
changes are of recent enactment.
Compensation and insurance systems.—There has been considerable
dissatisfaction with the elective feature of compensation laws. A
large proportion of employers in some of the States having such
elective laws have refused to accept the compensation provisions,
thus depriving their employees of the benefits of this legislation.
Notwithstanding this fact, and also the fact that several compensation
commissions have recommended a change from the elective to the
compulsory system, only one of the elective compensation States
5 Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
« The five States (Alabama, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia) which enacted com
pensation laws in 1918 and 1919 have not been taken into account in the following analysis.
IN T R O D U C T IO N .
9
(Illinois) substituted the compulsory for the elective system. On
the other hand, of the States in which employers were not required
to insure, four7 changed to a compulsory insurance system. No
State has established a State insurance fund which was not provided
for in the original compensation act, nor has any State abolished such
a State fund after its establishment.
Scope.—The scope of the various acts, i. e., the employments cov
ered, has on the whole remained quite stationary. None of the
States which originally excluded agriculture and domestic service
has later included such employments. New York is the only one of
the original “ hazardous” States which later included nonhazardous
employments, although several States in whose laws only enumerated
hazardous employments were covered have added a few minor employ
ments to enumerated statutory lists. The more important additions
during the past two years were cotton ginning in Texas and retail
stores in Oklahoma by the repeal of the provisions exempting them.
Four States 8 subsequently included public employees after having
made no provision therefor in the original acts. In one particular,
however, the scope of the compensation acts has been considerably
increased. Twenty States originally exempted employers having less
than a stipulated number of employees. Of these, 5 States 9 have
reduced the number of employees and 3 States 10 have abolished the
numerical exemption provision altogether. Many of the States
originally exempted casual employments but there is a tendency to
abolish this exemption.
Waiting period.—The waiting period has been changed in 22
States, 3 11 of which have made two or more successive changes. Of
these, 20 States12 reduced the waiting period; 1 State13first increased
its waiting period from 1 week to 2 weeks and then reduced it again
to 1 week; and 1 State 14 increased the period from 1^ days to 7 days.
In addition a number of States have abolished the waiting period en
tirely in certain cases. Of these, 10 States 15 abolished the waiting
period if the disability exceeds stated periods, while 1 State 16 abol
ished the waiting time in partial disability injuries.
7 California, Illinois, Nebraska, and New Jersey.
8 Oregon, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.
9 Kentucky, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
10 Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming.
11 California, Colorado, and Connecticut.
12 From 2 weeks to 1 week: Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Vermont; from 2 weeks to 10 days: Maine, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota; from 3 weeks to 10 days: Colorado; from 10 days to 3 days:
Utah; from 3 weeks to 2 weeks: New Mexico.
13 California.
14 Washington.
15 Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Washing
ton, and Wyoming.
16 Hawaii.
10
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O P
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
Compensation scale* —Some of the factors entering into the com
pensation scale have remained quite rigid, while others have bee©
relatively more susceptible of change. la practically all of the
States the compensation payments are based upon the wages of the
injured employee, ranging generally from 50 to 66§ per cent, Four
teen States17 have materially increased their original percentages.
Twenty-four States18 increased their weekly or monthly maximum
eompensation limits. Twelve States also increased the period dur
ing which eompensation shall be paid. Of these, *5 19 increased the
period in case of death; 8 20 in case of total disability, and 5 21 in
case of partial disability. However, probably the most inelastic
factor of the compensation scale is the schedule for permanent
partial disability. Of the States having such schedules only 6 23
have materially increased the compensation periods or amounts;
while 3 23 have slightly increased the amounts in individual cases.
Two States24 have materially enlarged the list of injuries in the
schedule without increasing the compensation periods, while I 25
has provided for a new schedule. In addition* Texas increased its
schedule substantially both as to list of injuries and as to compen
sation periods, but it also amended its law by making such eom
pensation in lieu of all other payments, whereas formerly such pay
ments were in addition to all other compensation.
Mediad service.—The provisions as to medical service have under
gone greater change than any other feature of the workmen’s com
pensation laws. Thirty-two States26 have increased the medical
service originally provided, either as to maximum amounts or
length of time during which such medical seriee is to be furnished.
In three of these States 27 the maximum limit has been abolished
entirely and employers must provide medical attendance as long as
reasonably necessary. Most of these increases were provided in
recent years. State legislatures and compensation commissions
seem at last to realize the fact that adequate medical and hospital
17 From 50 to G6§ per cent: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New Jersey; from 50 to 60 per cent:
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, aaad Pennsylvania; from 50 to -55 pea* cent: Domsiana and South
Dakota; from 55 to-60 peroent: Utah; from 50 to 65 in certain cases: Illinois.
18 Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Lomsi&na, Maine, Massachusetts., Michigan, Mumesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,, Ohio, Oklahoma,, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, aaad Wyoming.
19 Delaware, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, and Ohio.
20 Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, West Virginia., and Wisconsin.
& Connecticut, Delaware, MassacbwaesttB, Michigan, and Nevada.
32 Jjndiima, NeSsaasfca* Waahingtan, West Virginia., Wi&ccmsLn,
Wyoming.
23 Iowa, Nevada, said Soutk Dakota.
24 Hawaii and Nebraska.
25 Kansas.
23 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana»
Mmoae, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nelrcaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
27 California, Connecticut, and Porlo Rico.
IN T R O D U C T IO N .
11
service is absolutely essential for the complete economic rehabilitation
of injured workmen. There is also a tendency toward closer State
supervision over the quality of the medical service furnished by
employers. A number of States recently authorized compensation
commissions to approve or supervise hospitals and benefit funds
maintained either by employers themselves or under contract,
and to order change of physicians if necessary. There is also
a trend toward allowing the injured employee to select his
own physician. In 1917, for the first time in the history of the com
pensation legislation in this country, employees were specifically
given the right by law to choose the physician when the cost of the
medical service is paid by the employer.
Administrative system.—Nebraska and New Jersey are the only
States which have materially changed their system of administration
since 1913, a compensation commission replacing the former method
of administration by the courts. The original compensation laws
of Illinois and Nevada, enacted in 1911, also, did not provide for
administrative systems, but both States created administrative com
missions in 1913. In addition Massachusetts and New York have
abolished the arbitration committee system.
Sectional variations.—A review of the workmen’s compensation
laws of the several States brings out three significant facts. One is
the absence of these laws in most of the Southern States; 28 another
is the refusal of most States to be guided by the experience of other
States; and the third is the inclination of the far Western States to
strike out along new lines, as shown by the following facts: The only
States 29which have established exclusive State insurance systems are
in the far West. Also, the only States 30which have established pen
sion systems, the amounts presumably based upon the need of the
workman or his dependents rather than upon loss of earning power,
are in the far West. Washington is the only State providing for the
administration of medical service through local medical aid boards
patterned after the German system. The only laws which provide
for the maintenance of contract hospitals to which the employee
is required to contribute his proportionate share have been enacted
by far Western States.31 And of the four States 32 in which the ad
ministrative commissions are authorized to formulate and have formu
lated elaborate schedules for permanent partial disabilities based as
far as possible upon the actual loss of earning power, three fire in the
far West.
23 North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, aind the District of GsliamMa
have not yet enacted workmen’s compensation laws.
23 Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. (Port® Rico also has anexek®ive Stateinsanmcfcluftd.)
Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
31 Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington.
32 California, North Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.
1 2
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
One regrettable fact in connection with the enactment of work
men’s compensation legislation, as already noted, is the disinclina
tion of most States to be guided by the experience developed under
the laws of other States. The type of law, including scope, compen
sation scale, administrative system, etc., usually adopted by a State
is determined generally by two factors— contiguity and the economic
and political progressiveness of the State. An examination of the
laws of the 10 States enacting compensation laws since 1916 shows
that these two factors were most influential in determining the
type of law enacted. The far Western States especially have been
inclined to pattern their laws after those adopted by contiguous
States, due in part to the fact that, owing to the great distances,
investigating commissions and others responsible for the enactment
of the laws have found*it inexpedient to acquaint themselves with the
experience of the Eastern States by personal investigations. Even
tually, no doubt, all of the States will adopt those compensation laws
which shall have been empirically proved to be the best, but appar
ently it is necessary for each State to attain this through experience
alone.
COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE SYSTEMS.
Compensation laws may be classified as compulsory, elective (op
tional), or voluntary, depending upon the degree of constraint to
which employers are subjected to accept the compensation provisions.
Since these terms will be used repeatedly it may be advisable to
define them. A compulsory law is one which requires every em
ployer within the scope of the compensation law to accept the act
and pay the compensations specified. There is no choice. Usually,
but not always, the employee also must accept the provisions of the
act. In Arizona, for example, the law is compulsory as applied to
the employer, but the employee, after an injury, has the option of
accepting compensation or suing for damages.
An elective act is one in which the employer has the option of
either accepting or rejecting the act, but, in case he rejects, the cus
tomary common-law defenses are usually abrogated.
other words,
the employer is penalized if he does not elect. The employee also
has the right to accept or reject the act.
None of the compensation laws covers all employments. Usually
agriculture, domestic service, employments casual in nature or not
conducted for the purpose of the employer’s business, and in some
laws nonhazardous employments, are exempted from the provisions
of the act. In some States such employments, however, may come
under the provisions of the law through the voluntary acceptance
of the employer or the joint election of employer and employee in
these exempted classes, but the employer loses no rights or defenses
C O M P E N S A T IO N
A N D
IN S U R A N C E
S Y S T E M S .
13
if he does not accept. Such action on the part of the employer is
called voluntary and to this extent the compensation law is a volun
tary one. Thus a law may be either compulsory or elective as to the
employments covered, and voluntary as to employments exempted.
Furthermore, the employments referred to above are private em
ployments. An act may be elective as to private but compulsory as
to public employments. In fact, one-half of the elective compensa
tion laws are compulsory as to public employees. Classification,
however, is based exclusively upon private employments.
Distinction must also be made between the effective and theoretical
scope of an act. A compulsory compensation law may be limited in
its scope, but at least all employees within this scope are covered,
while an elective act may include all employments and yet fail to
cover a large proportion of employees because of the employers’
refusal to accept the provisions of the law.
Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, the theoretical scope of an
act is meant, and when such expressions as 50 per cent of employees
are “ covered” by the act, or “ affected” by the act, or “ come under”
the act, or are “ subject to” the act, it is presumed that all employers
in the State referred to have accepted the compensation provisions
of the law. It is hoped that by thus defining the terms, ambiguity
and confusion will be avoided, or at least minimized. The extent
to which employers in elective States have actually accepted the law
will be discussed in another connection.
Compensation laws may be classified upon different bases. As
already noted, one method of classification is the division into com
pulsory and elective compensation laws, depending upon whether the
compensation provisions are obligatory or optional. The require
ments as to insurance constitute another basis for classification. On
this basis the laws may be classified as compulsory, including all
laws in which some form of insurance is required, or optional, in
cluding laws in which no insurance is required. Table 1 shows the
compensation States grouped according to these two classifications.
14
T a b le
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
1 .—COMPENSATION STATES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO W H E T H E R L A W IS
COM PULSORY OR ELECTIVE.
Compensation compulsory.
(14)
Insurance reauired.
(13) *
California.
Hawaii.
Idaho.
Illinois.
Maryland.
New York.
North Dakota.
Ohio.
Oklahoma,
Porto Rico.1
Utah.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Insurance not
required.
(1)
Arizona.
Compensation elective.
(31)
Insurance required.
(» )
Colorado.
Connecticut.
Delaware.
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kentucky.
Maine.
Massachusetts.
Michigan.
Missouri.
Montana.
Nebraska.
Nevada.
New Hampshire.
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
Oregon.
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island.
South Dakota.
Tennessee.
Texas.
Vermont.
Virginia.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin.
Insurance not
required.
(5)
; Alabama.
Alaska.
Kansas.
Louisiana.
Minnesota.
i In a decision rendered Jane 3, 1919, the United States Circuit Court of appeals held that the Porto
Rican compensation law is compulsory (Camunas v. N. Y . & P. R. S. S. Co., 260 Fed., 40).
It will be noted that of the 45 compensation States 14 are com
pulsory and 31 are elective as to compensation provisions, while 39
are compulsory and 6 elective as to insurance requirements.
Very considerable differences appear in the methods provided by
the laws of the 39 States in which insurance is obligatory. Thus the
State may make provision for the carrying of such insurance, and
require all employers coming under the act to avail themselves of
such provision; or the State fund may simply offer one of alternative
methods. Again, the State may refrain entirely from such action,
but require insurance in private companies, stock or mutual; and
lastly, self-insurance may be permitted, i. e., the carrying of the risk
by the individual, subject to such safeguards as the law may prescribe.
COMPENSATION
AND
INSURANCE
SYSTj
NO COMPENSATION LAW
COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
ELECTIVE:
f REQUIRED
\ NOT REQUIRED
COMPENSATION COMPULSORY:
. f REQUIRED
INSURANCE
( NOT REQUIRED
16
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
Table 2 shows the groupings on the bases indicated:
T a b l e 2 — COMPULSORY
INSURANCE STATES, CLASSIFIED AS TO D IF F E R E N T
OF INSURANCE A L L O W E D .
KINDS
State fund.
(17)
Exclusive.
( 8)
California.
Colorado. .
Idaho i..
Maryland.
Michigan..
Montana.
Self-insurance.
Private insurance.
(31)
Competitive.
(9)
(31)
California........
Colorado..........
Connecticut___
Delaware.........
Hawaii.............
Idahoi.............
Illinois.............
Indiana............
Iowa.................
Kentucky____
Maine...............
Maryland.........
Massachusetts..
Michigan......... .
Missouri...........
Montana...........
Nebraska........ .
California.
Colorado.
Connecticut.
Delaware.
Hawaii.
Idaho.
Illinois.
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kentucky.
Maine.
Maryland.
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Michigan.
Missouri:
Montana.
Nebraska.
Nevada..
New York.
Hampshire2
Jersey..........
Mexico........
York............
North Dakota.
Ohio3...............
Oklahoma.......
Hampshire.2
Jersey.
Mexico.
York.
Ohio.3
Oklahoma.
Oregon........
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island..
South Dakota.
Tennessee........
Texas...............
Utah.................
Vermont..........
Virginia4........
Rhode Island.
South Dakota.
Tennessee.
Utah.
Vermont.
Virginia.4
Wisconsin..
West Virginia.6
Wisconsin.
Porto Rico.
Utah..
Washington___
West Virginia 5.
Wyoming.
'I'
1 Idaho permits self-insurance. However, employers who carry their own risk may insure in authorized
guaranty companies.
2 The New Hampshire law requires employers accepting the act to furnish proof of solvency or give bond,
but makes no other provision for insurance.
3 Ohio permits self-insurance, but all employers are required to contribute their proportionate share to
the State insurance fund surplus.
4 Self-insurers required to contribute 4 per cent of their premium to commission's maintenance fund.
6 West Virginia has practically an exclusive State insurance system. Self-insurance is allowed, but
employers desiring to carry their own risk must contribute their proportionate share to the administrative
expenses of the law.
Broadly speaking, the laws may be divided into four main groups
or combination of groups, namely: (1) Exclusive State fund, (2)
competitive State fund, (3) private insurance, either stock or mu
tual, and (4) self-insurance or where employers are permitted to
carry their own risk. In most cases the employers have the option
of several kinds of insurance. This does, not hold true, however, of
the States having strictly exclusive systems. In these cases no other
form of insurance is permitted.
It will be noted that six States have such exclusive systems. In
two of these, Nevada and Oregon, compensation is elective and
C O M P E N S A T IO N
A N D
IN S U R A N C E
S Y S T E M S .
17
insurance is therefore not absolutely compulsory, since employers
need not accept the act, but should they accept, insurance in the
State fund is compulsory. In North Dakota, Washington, and
Wyoming both compensation and insurance are compulsory. In
these six States the State becomes the sole insurance carrier. It
classifies the industries into groups according to hazard, fixes and
collects premiums, adjudicates claims, and pays compensation. Two
other States (Ohio and West Virginia) are nearly exclusive in char
acter. They allow no private casualty company to operate, but
permit self-insurance. Ohio permits employers to carry their own
risk, though all such employers are required to contribute their pro
portionate share to the State insurance fund surplus. Self-insurers,
however, are not permitted to insure their risk in private companies.
West Virginia has practically an exclusive State insurance system.
It permits no private insurance, but does allow self-insurance. The
employers, however, who desire to carry their own risk must con
tribute their proportionate share to the administrative expenses of
the law.
In the other 31 States having compulsory insurance laws some form
of competition exists, or at least the employer is given an option as
to the method of insuring his risk. In nine of these States 33 the laws
provide for a State fund through which the State conducts a work
men’s compensation insurance business in competition with private
liability companies. Private casualty companies, however, are per
mitted to write compensation insurance in all of these States. Idaho
differs somewhat from the other States having competitive State
funds. It allows employers to carry their own risk and also permits
substitute insurance schemes if the benefits provided equal those of
the act. Self-insurers, however, as evidence of satisfactory security,
may furnish a surety bond or guaranty contract with any authorized
surety or guaranty company. Moreover, the attorney general has
held that the words uguaranty contract” includes insurance con
tracts and consequently self-insured employers may transfer their
compensation liability to authorized private casualty companies.
Three States34 have so-called State mutual insurance companies.
Massachusetts was the first State to provide for this type of insur
ance. The original purpose was to create an insurance monopoly
conducted by an employers7 mutual company and supervised by the
State. Before the law was finally enacted, however, private com
panies were given practically the same privileges as the so-called
State company, which at present is a regular competing private
mutual company. The other two States merely copied the provi
63 California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Texas.
18
C O M P A R IS O N
O E
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
sions of the Massachusetts law. Massachusetts and Texas do not
permit self-insurance, while Kentucky does.
Of the 39 compulsory insurance States, 31 permit private com
panies to operate, the only exceptions being the 8 exclusive State
fund States.
Thirty-one States allow employers to self-insure or carry their
own risk, the exceptions being the exclusive States of Nevada, North
Dakota, Oregon, Porto Rico, Washington, and Wyoming, and the
States of Massachusetts and Texas. Employers who avail them
selves of this privilege are required either to give proof of their
financial solvency and ability to pay compensation or to furnish
bonds or other security, or to do both. In several. States such em
ployers are also permitted to secure their compensation payments
by guaranty insurance.
New Hampshire's compensation law is exceptional in that em
ployers who accept the act must furnish proof of financial solvency
or deposit adequate security, but the law makes no other provision
as to insurance.
SCOPE OF THE LAWS.
No two compensation laws are alike. A number of provisions
have been adopted quite uniformly by nearly all the States, and
those of certain States have been taken as models by others. For
example: Michigan and Texas have followed Massachusetts in im
portant particulars; Oregon and Nevada have copied after Washing
ton, and Maryland adopted New York's law quite generally. But
taken as a whole the laws are distinguished more for their dissimi
larities than for their likenesses.
In attempting to compare and weigh the various acts it is neces
sary to concentrate upon the more important features. The scope
of an act is perhaps of foremost importance. In other words, what
industries are covered, what persons are compensated, and what ex
emptions are made? These are vital questions. It is of no particu
lar importance to an injured workman to know that his State has an
efficient administrative system, or that the compensation scale is
high, or that payments are well secured by adequate supervision
over insurance carriers, if Ms occupation is excluded from the bene
fits of the act.
The amount of compensation received is probably the next most
important feature of a compensation law. This includes the com
pensation scale, the length of time for which compensation is paid,
the maximum and minimum limits, the amount of medical service
provided, and the length of the waiting period.
S C O P E
O F
T H E .
L A W S .
A third important feature is the provision for an administrative
system. It is essential that the rights of injured workmen be looked
after by some responsible agency in order that employees may re
ceive prompt and just settlements and to prevent intimidation on the
part of employers. It is desirable that injured employees should re
ceive the full amount of compensation due them and receive it im
mediately and regularly. Other important provisions are those
relating to security of compensation payments and injuries covered.
No State compensation: act, even, when full use of the elective pro
visions is taken into account, covers all employees. The nearest ap
proach to universal coverage is the New Jersey act, which exempts
only casual laborers, public officials,- and, public employees receiving
salaries in excess of $1,200. The principal exemptions, in the order
of their importance) perhaps are: (1) Nunhazardous employments;
(2.) agriculture; (3) domestic service; (4) numerical exceptions, i. e.,
employers having less than a specified number of employees; (5)
public employees; (6) casual5laborers or those not employed for
the purpose of the employer’s business; and (7) employments not
conducted for gain. In addition, there are a number of minor ex
emptions affecting individual States.
As already noted, most of the States which exempt certain em
ployments provide that the parties exempted may accept the pro
visions of the compensation system through voluntary agreements or
joint election, but the ordinary defenses of the employer are not
abrogated if they do not elect. As a matter of fact, in most States
this privilege has not been taken advantage* of to any great extent35
and its effect in increasing the scope of an act is negligible.
35 For example: In California, in 1918,15,182 out af a total ofnot less than 77,000 employing farmers, not
under the act by compulsion, had come under it voluntarily; in Connecticut, in 1916,1,500 out of 70,000 em
ployees had elected to come under the act; in Maryland, in 1915, only 42 ofall the employers in nonhazardous
industries, and tjma not compelled to accept the act, had voluntarily done so; and in Nebraska, in 1915,
only 87'employeraof those exempt from all compulsionhadt voluntarily accepted the act.
20
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
Table 3 shows the inclusions and exclusions of the various States
arranged according to the foregoing classifications:
T able 3 .—SCOPE OF COM PENSATION L A W S.
Inclusions.
Both
Haz
hazard ardous
ous and
em
nonhazploy
ardous
ments
employ only.
ments.
Exclusions.
Nu
mer
ical
ex
emp
tions.
Agri
cul
ture.
Casual
labor and Employ
Public
ments
Do
employ
em
mestic ment not not con
ploy
service. for employ ducted
ments.
er’s busi for gain.
ness.
Ala.i... A l a ... A l a ...
Alaska. Alaska6
Ariz__
Calif*.. Calif...
Calif........
Colo.........
Colo.A Colo... Colo...
Conn.......
Del..........
Del.6.. D e l... D e l...
Hawaii...
Ala..........
Idaho. Idaho.
Idaho___
111
Ill
In d .... In d ....
Kans.. Kans.u
K y .13.
La. ..
Me.15. .
Md
Kans
K y ....
Ind__
Iowa.. Iowa..
Iowa........
K y ...
M e *!!’ " *
Mass . . . .
Mich
Minn___
Mo
Mo.6. .
Mont
Nebr
N e v ...
Mass..
Mich..
Minn..
M o.. . .
Ala.2......... ................. Ala.3. .
Alaska.
Ariz...
Calif.2........
Colo.2
Colo.......
(*)
Conn. (outworkers).
Conn.7___
Del.*.........
D e l... Del. (outworkers).
Hawaii8. . Hawaii
Hawaii (private employees
receiving over $36 a week;
public employees over
$1,800 a year).
Idaho7 ___ Idaho
Idaho (outworkers; chari
table institutions; employ
ees receiving over $2,400 a
year).
\
111.®............
Ind.2..........
Ind. (railroad employees in
train service).
Iowa8........
Iowa i° Iowa (clerks not subject to
hazard of industry).
Kans.9___ Kans___ Kans.12
Ky M..
La.9...........
Me. (logging).
Me.s...........
Md.7.......... Md......... Md.16.. Md. (country blacksmiths;
employees receiving over
$2,000 a year).
Mass.9 ...
Mass.*7
Mass..
Mich
Minn.. Minn.2 „.
Mo___ Mo.2...........
Mont.. Mont.. Mont.9
Nebr.. Nebr.. Nebr .8___
N e v ... N ev... Nev.2
N .H .. N. H 6
Minn.18 Minn, (steam railroads).
Mo. (outworkers; employees
receiving over $3,000 a
year).
Nebr. (outworkers).
Nebr___
N .H ..
N. J.7........
N. J
N. Y
N. Dak
Ohio . . .
Ky
M e .... M e ....
M d ..., M d ....
Other employments.
N. H . (only workmen en
gaged in manual or me
chanical labor included).
N. J. (public employees re
ceiving over $1,200 a year).
N.Mex.s... N.M ex... N.Mex.
N Mex. NMex.19
N. Y.20 N. Y .. N. Y . .
N. Y
N. Dak. (steam railroads).
N.Dak. N.Dak. N.Dak.2"
Ohio 6..
1 Less than 16 excluded.
2 Casual and not for purpose of employer’s business.
* Except State employees.
* Less than 4 excluded.
6 Members of National Guard excluded.
8 Less than 5 excluded.
* Casual only.
8 Casual or not for purpose of employer’s business.
9 Not for purpose of employer’s business.
w City teachers excluded by ruling of commissioner.
11 Less than 5 excluded. Mines excepted from this provision.
12 Except municipal and county workmen.
13 Less than 3 excluded.
n State and municipalities having less than 3 employees.
l*>Less than 6 excluded.
Except workmen.
17 Except State workmen,
is State.
19 Less than 4 excluded*. Structural operations, 10 feet above ground, excepted from this provision.
20 Less than 4 workmen or operatives excluded; numerical exemption applies only to nonhazardous em
ployments.
S C O P E
T able
O F
Exclusions.
Casual
labor and Employ
Public
ments
employ
Do
em
mestic ment not not con ploy
service. for employ ducted ments.
er’s busi for gain.
ness.
Haz
ardous
em
ploy
ments
only.
Nu
mer
ical
ex
emp
tions.
Okla..
Okla.13 Okla..
Oreg
Pa............
P. R ........ .............
Oreg
P a___
P.R.13. P .R . .
.Pa.2...........
Pa
P. R . .
R. I
R.I.w. R . I . . .
R .I ...
S. Dak
Tenn.......
Tex.........
S.Dak. S.Dak. S. Dak.2
Tenn.22 Tenn.. Tenn.. Tenn.9___
Tex.*3. T e x ... T e x ... Tex.9.........
Utah
Utah13. Utah..
Utah.. Utah2
V t............
Vt.23
V t ___
V t .8...........
V a ...........
Va.23.. V a . ...
V a . ...
Va.8...........
W .V a.
W .Va.
Agri
cul
ture.
O k la ....
R .I .2.........
W ash.
W .Va
......
W is.13. Wis
"Wis
21
L A W S .
3 .-S C 0 P E OF COMPENSATION L A W S —Concluded.
Inclusions.
Both
hazard
ous and
nonhazardous
employ
ments.
T H E
W yo
Wis.®.........
W yo.2
Other employments.
Okla.16 Okla. (persons not engaged
in manual or mechanical
work).
Pa. (outworkers).
P. R .21 P. R . (clerical occupations;
employees receiving over
$1,500 a year).
R . I. (employees receiving
over $1,800 a year).
Tenn.. Tenn. (coal mines).
T e x ... Tex. (railways used as com
mon carriers).
Utah (public employees re
ceiving over $2,400 a year).
V t .......... Vt.18.. Vt. (employees receiving over
$2,000 a year).
Va. (steam railroads).
*
Wash.16
W . Va. (traveling salesmen;
corporation officers; em
ployees not “ regularly’ !
employed).
W y o .... W y o .16 W yo. (officials; clerks not
subject to hazard of indus
try).
1 Casual and not for purpose of employer’s business.
2 Casual or not for purpose of employer’s business.
8 Not for purpose of employer’s business.
* Less than 3 excluded.
6 Less than 6 excluded.
• Except workmen.
7 State.
8 Except employees engaged on public works performed by the administration.
9 Less than 10 excluded.
10 Less than 11 excluded.
HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENTS.
It will be noted that 13 of the 45 States include only hazardous
employments. In these States the industries covered are enumerated
and classified in varying degrees of detail, ranging from 5 classifica
tions in New Hampshire to 43 in Maryland. These lists may, in
some cases, be further extended at the discretion of the administrative
commissions, or through decisions of the courts. There is also con
siderable diversity in the scope and number of hazardous employ
ments included. It is impossible within the bounds of a chart or
summary to present all the details of inclusion. In Alaska, only
mining operations are included, but in the other States the prin
cipal hazardous employments are covered, including manufacturing,
mining, transportation, and construction work. In enumerating the
industries covered various phrases are used to denote the unusual
2 2
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
degree of risk to which the employees are exposed. In three States36
the term “ hazardous” employment is used, in five37 “ extrahazardous,” and in one 38 “ inherently hazardous” ; one State39 employs
the word “ dangerous,” while tw o40 use “ especially dangerous.”
Such phrases, however, have on the whole only a euphonious utility.
Not only are the enumerated employments not always based on the
actual hazard of the industry, but generally recognized hazardous
employments are specifically excluded. In Maine, for example,
logging operations, conceded to be one of the most hazardous employ
ments, are exempted from the compensation act, while coal mines
are exempted in Tennessee. In no State is agriculture, generally
admitted to be a hazardous employment, included in terms, while
in six States 41 it is specifically excluded. Five States42 also provide
for numerical exclusions, i. e., exempting the small employer from
the operation of the act.
Obviously the scope of the law in the foregoing groups of States
is much more limited than in all other States, since it would exclude
the trades, professions, clerical occupations, and domestic service.
It may be noted, however, that compensation is compulsory in six
of these “ hazardous” States.
The exclusion of employments or employers on the ground of hav
ing a low hazard is indefensible from every point of view and especially
from that of the injured workman whose misfortune is not at all
alleviated by the suggestion that the injxtry was quite unusual or
unexpected. An injury received in a mercantile establishment may
be just as severe and entail just as much economic distress as one
received in a mine. And, furthermore, if an occupation is in fact
only slightly hazardous, the additional burden to the industry and
society will be slight because of the very fact that accidents are
infrequent in these exempted employments.
NUMERICAL EXEMPTIONS.
A second exclusion is the exemption of small employers from the
operation of the law. Twenty-two States exempt employers having
less than a stipulated number of employees,, as shown in Table 4*
a* Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
w Illinois, Maryland-, New Mexico, Washington* and Wyoming^
38 Montana.
»*New Hampshire.
Arizona and Kaasas>
& Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
& Alaska, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma;.
S C O P E
T a b le
4 , — NUM ERICAL
OS5 T H E
2a
L 'A W B .
EXEMPTION. STATES CLASSIFIED
OF EM PLOYEES E X E M P T E D .
ACCORDING
TO
NUM BER
Employers having less thaaa?—
3 em
ployees.
(6)
4remployees*.
(3)
Kentucky. Colorado.
Oklahoma. New Mexico.
Porto Rico. New York.
Texas.
Utah.
Wisconsin.1
5 employees.
(7)
6 employees.
(2)
Alaska.
Maine.
Connecticut.
Rhode Island.
Delaware.
Kansas.
Missouri,
j New Hampshire.
Ohio.
10 employees.
11 employees.
(2)
Tennessee'.
Vermont.
Virginia.
16 em
ployees.
(1)
Alabama.
rLi Wiscsxasm. the numerical exemption, provision does not apply if the employer has at any time
since September 1, 1917, had three or more employees.
Several reasons have been advanced for the exclusion of the small
employer, one being based upon the theory that the hazard of fellow
service is low in employments where only a few workmen are em
ployed. Another reason given is that the cost of insurance for such
employees would be proportionately high. A third reason is that
such exemption automatically excludes two important classes of
employments, namely, agriculture and domestic service. A large
proportion of casual labor and employments not in the usual course
of the employer’s business are also excluded through the numericalexemption provision.
ACrKICHD I/if U
Every State except tw o43 exempts agriculture. The exclusion is
either direct ory what amounts to the same thing? the employer's
defenses are not abrogated in case he does not elect. In 33 States
agriculture is excluded specifically in the law, while in three States 44
its exclusion is accomplished through the exemption of the small
employer. In the other seven States 45 only hazardous employments
are covered and agriculture is not included in the enumerated lists.
The reason for the almost universal exclusion of agriculture in the
United States can hardly lie in the fact of its nonhazardous character.
European experience, combined with available accident statistics in
this country, proven quite conclusively that agriculture is a highly
hazardous employment. The opposition of the farming element no
doubt explains the exclusion, in 43 States, of agricultural laborers
from the benefits of compensation acts.
13 Hawaii and’ New Jersey.
41 Connecticut, Ohio, and' Vermont.
« Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.
24
C O M P A R IS O N
O P
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
DOMESTIC SERVICE.
Domestic service is exempted in all but one State.46 In 29 States
the exclusion is direct, while in three47 it is brought about byexempting the small employers; in one State48 the exclusion is
accomplished by limiting the field of compensation to "industrial
employments77 and exempting those not conducted for gain; in the
other 11 States only hazardous employments are covered.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
The provisions in regard to public employees also lack uniformity.
Some States differentiate between the employees STThe Btate and of
municipalities. Others include only those engaged in manual labor.
In some States, again, the inclusion is compulsory, in others it is
optional, while in still others no provision at all is made.
Twenty-six States 49 include both State and municipal employees,
while seven States 50 include neither. In the other 12 States 51 the
inclusion of public employees is only partial. The status of each
State is shown in Table 3.52 Of the 38 States which include public
employees, either in whole or in part, in all but 8 53 such inclusions are
compulsory. In these eight elective States compensation is also
elective as to private employers.
CASUAL LABOR.
Two other exceptions are found in most of the compensation laws.
These are casual laborers and persons not employed for the purpose
of the employer’s trade, business, profession, or occupation. The
term “ casual labor” is not readily defined nor is its meaning clear.
The various courts and commissions differ in their construction of
the term. The Nevada law defines casual labor as employment where
the work contemplated is to be completed in not exceeding 10 work
ing days, without regard to the number of men employed, and where
the total labor cost of such work is less than $100. The New Jersey
act defines casual employments, “ if in connection with the employer’s
business, as employment the occasion for which arises by chance or
is purely accidental; or if not in connection with any business of the
employer as employment not regular, periodic, or recurring.” Cali46 New Jersey.
47 Connecticut, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
48 Hawaii.
49 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mis
souri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Texas.
« Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Porto Kico, Ver
mont, Washington, and Wyoming.
m See pp. 20, 21.
m Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.
S C O P E
O F
T H E
L A W S .
25
forma has interpreted the phrase as meaning employment for less than
one week. Six States 54 have recently eliminated the “ casual labor”
provision from the act entirely.
Distinction must also be made between persons not employed in
the usual course of the employer’s business, on the one hand, and em
ployments not conducted for gain, on the other. The former refers
primarily to employees as such and would include personal and
household servants; employments not conducted for gain refer pri
marily to employers and would include religious and charitable
institutions. Casual employment may or may not be for gain, reg
ularity being the principal criterion; employments not in the usual
course of the employer’s business may or may not be casual and may
or may not be for the employer’s pecuniary gain; but persons em
ployed in employments not conducted for gain by the employer may
be, and usually are, employed in the usual course of the employer’s
business. The Wisconsin Industrial Commission has interpreted the
word “ usual,” as used in the phrase “ usual course of employer’s
trade, etc./7 as modifying “ course” and not “ trade.” Any person,
therefore, in the service of another performing work for his em
ployer is covered by the law, provided such work is in the usual
course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation. South
Dakota, however, has construed the phrase differently. The attorney
general of the State has held that laborers employed in constructing a
church were not covered by the act because it is not the usual business
of the church to build buildings.
Thirty-four States make exceptions of this kind, while 1155 do not.
Six States56exempt both casual laborers and those not employed in the
usual course of the employer’s business; while in 16 States57 the em
ployment must be both casual and not in the usual course of the em
ployer’s business, thus limiting the exclusions considerably. Four
States58 exempt only casual labor, while eight States59 exempt only
persons not in the usual course of the employer’s business.
EMPLOYMENTS NOT FOR GAIN.
As already noted, employments not conducted for gain or profit
refer primarily to businesses or institutions and not to employees as
such. Eleven States exempt such employments. Charitable, educa
tional, and religious institutions are included within this group. In
New York the court held that even public employments, irrespective
54 Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, West Virgiaia, and Wisconsin.
« Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregoa, Porto Rico,
Washington, and West Virginia.
66 Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Vermont, and Virginia.
57 Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
68 Connecticut, Idaho, Maryland, and New Jersey.
69 Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
2 ;#
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W &
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
of the fact that they were specifically included in another1provision
of the act,. were excluded from the operation of the law, because
snch employments w~ere not conducted for gain. The law was later
amended60 so as definitely to include public employments*,: regardless
of the question of gain.
EXTRATERRITORIALITY.
Another feature pertaining to the scope of compensation laws is
the question of extraterritoriality, i. e„, whether employees injured
outside of the State are entitled to compensation. Soma States
include such injuries, either specifically by law or through the deci
sions of the commissions and court; some exclude them, while others
make no provision.. In 19 States61 the laws have extraterritorial
effect; in 14 States 62 injuries occurring without the State are not
compensable;, while in 12 States 63 the law is not explicit.
MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTIONS.
In addition to the foregoing exclusions, many States have special
exemptions of more or less importance* the most frequent being the
exclusion of highly paid employees. Nine States 34 have exemptions
of this character. Because of the recent rise in the wage level the
exclusion of such workmen has become a serious defect in the com
pensation laws having this provision.. Other exemptions are: Out
workers in Connecticut* Delaware, Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Pennsylvania; coal mines in Tennessee; logging in Maine; all railways
used as common carriers in Texas; country blacksmiths in Maryland;
charitable institutions in Idaho; traveling salesmen in West Virginia;
clerical occupations in Iowar Porto Rico, and Wyoming; steam rail
roads in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Virginia; and railroad em
ployees engaged in train service in Indiana.
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.65
The employments and employees heretofore enumerated are all
subject to State legislation and State jurisdiction. Another em
ployment which must necessarily be excluded is interstate rail
roads, The power to legislate for them is vested in the Federal
Congress, and since it has acted the State laws can not enter tie field.
eo Ch. 622, Laws'of 1916.
® Alabama, Colorado, Conaeetfeut, Hawaii,. Idaho, Indiana?, M aias, Missouri* Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah* Verm ont, Virginity and Wiaeeasia* (eoartruling).
ea Alaska, California, Delaware,, Miaofe (fce&rfc decision),- Kansas, Kentucky (court decision;),. Maryland
(exception as to. miners-)* Massachusetts,- Michigan, Minnesota, Pemisylvania,. Bfeedso Island. (court deci
sion), Washington, and West Virginia (commissioner’s ruling).
63 Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska,. New Hampshire, New Mexico,. North? Dakota* Oklahssia, Oregon, Porto Rieo, an<f. Wyoming;
64 Hawaii, Idaho, M arylsisi, Missouri,- ££ew Jersey, Porto R ico, Rhode Island^. Utah,. and Vermont.
65 Tor a thorough discussion of this subject see articley. MEmployees, engaged in aiteratat^ anti for
eign commerce).” fey L. B»* Clark, in* November,, 191^, issue; ot the Monthly Labor Review,, pp. 294. to &I0.
S C O P E
O F
T H E
L A W S .
27
This exclusion is automatic by force of the facts, but several of the
laws state that they do not apply to such employment or that they
apply only so far as the operation of such roads is not regulated by
Federal statute.
A peculiar exclusion is that of the law of Texas, affecting all steam
and street railways, while Minnesota, North Dakota, and Virginia
exclude all steam railroads, and Indiana excludes employees engaged
in train service. In Texas and Minnesota, however, the legislature
has provided for this class of employees by enacting a liability law
patterned after the Federal statute.
The difficulties in interpreting and determining the jurisdiction of
State and Federal liability laws, when both were based on the ques
tion of negligence, were sufficiently great, but the entrance of State
compensation laws, involving new and different ideas of responsibility,
introduced questions of even greater complexity. The judicial
answers for the solution of these problems, moreover, were at first
irreconcilably conflicting. The New York and New Jersey courts
adopted the view that though Congress had spoken in cases of the
interstate employer’s negligence, it had said nothing which applied
to cases of injury due to other causes, and therefore the State might
enter the field without conflict with the Federal prerogative. The
Illinois courts took the opposite view. The decisions of the United
States Supreme Court in the two Winfield cases,66 however, declared
that when an employee engaged in interstate commerce was injured,
his only right to recover arose under the provision of the Federal
Employers7 Liability Act, regardless of the question of negligence.
The power of the States to supplement such legislation was denied.
Theoretically, therefore, all conflict of legal jurisdiction has been
cleared up by these decisions and a clear line of demarcation has
been established; but in practice it is frequently, if not usually, nec
essary to try each case in order to ascertain whether or not the tri
bunal undertaking to hear and determine the controversy has juris
diction over the parties to the proceeding.
Various methods of solution have been proposed, most of them
having in view the establishment of a single jurisdiction over rail
road employees, intrastate as well as interstate. One solution pro
poses the abrogation by Congress of the liability law in those States
in which an adequate compensation law has been enacted, a prece
dent for such a step being found in the so-called Webb-Kenyon law,
which subjects interstate shipments of intoxicants to the operation
of State laws on arrival within the jurisdiction of the State affected.
A second suggestion proposes a Federal statute providing compensa
tion for injuries to employees 'engaged in interstate commerce by
railroad, the law to be administered by referees who m&y also be
86 New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield (244 U. S. 147), and Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield (214 U. S. 170).
28
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
referees or administrative officers under the compensation laws of the
State in which they act, thus permitting an award under the proper
law on the presentation of evidence to a single individual or authority.
A third proposition is that because of the progress of compensation
legislation making adequate provision, which did not exist at the
time of the enactment of the Federal liability law of 1908, no Federal
compensation law be enacted, that the act of 1908 be repealed, and
the whole subject relegated to State law, as it practically was prior to
the enactment of the Federal liability statute. Still another method
is that embodied in a proposed amendment to the Federal liability
law providing that Congress do not assume to interfere with the power
of the various States to provide a method of compensation for death
and injury in cases not based upon negligence. This would enact
into law the doctrine laid down by the courts of last resort of New
Jersey and New York. A special committee 67 recently appointed
by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions has been at work attempting to formulate an adequate
compensation plan for railroad employees acceptable to the brother
hoods, railroads, and the State compensation commissions.
The foregoing proposals and discussions have to do solely with
railroad employees. State jurisdiction over employees engaged in
interstate commerce by water has been generally assumed since no
statute has been enacted by Congress governing water transporta
tion. But the recent far-reaching decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the Jensen case f*8 proved this assumption to be
incorrect. The case involved the death of a stevedore on shipboard
while engaged in unloading a steamship in New York Harbor. The
New York courts had held that the case was not covered by the
Federal statute governing interstate carriers by railroad, and as no
statute has been enacted by Congress governing carriage by water,
there was no Federal legislation applicable to the case. The de
cision of the Supreme Court was identical so far as the application
of the Federal liability law was concerned, but an objection raised
by the company to the decision of the court below that the compen
sation law w7as “ unconstitutional in that it violates Article III, sec
tion 2, of the Constitution, conferring admiralty jurisdiction upon
the courts of the United States,” was upheld by the Supreme Court
as regards the particular portion applying the law to maritime in
juries. The Supreme Court, however, did not decide the question
of admiralty jurisdiction over all injuries to sailors and stevedores
Composed of Royal Meeker, United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics, chairman; Fred M.
W ilcox, Wisconsin Industrial Commission, vice-chairman; T. J. Duffy, Ohio Industrial Commission;
W . A. Marshall, Oregon Industrial Accident Commission; A . J. Pillsbury, California Industrial Accident
Commission; C . H . Verrill, United States Employees’ Compensation Commission.
e8 Southern Pacific Co. v: Jensen (244 U. S. 295), May, 1917.
S C O P E
O F
T H E
L A W S .
29
without regard to whether the injury occurred on ship or on the
dock. The condition brought about by this decision, however, has
since been remedied by the enactment of a Federal law 69 giving
States concurrent jurisdiction over maritime cases.®
There are at present approximately 1,400,000 railroad employees
in the United States not covered by workmen’s compensation laws.
Of these nearly 400,000 are railroad trainmen, practically all of whom
are members of some railroad brotherhood. Some of these brother
hoods have been somewhat apathetic toward a Federal compensation
law, preferring an employers’ liability act under which the employee
could obtain heavy damages for those accidents in which the railroad
company was negligible, while other injuries could be taken care of
through the brotherhood’s benefit and insurance funds. It should be
borne in mind, however, that the trainmen proper constitute but 24
per cent of the total railroad employees, exclusive of shopmen.' The
thousands of trackmen, section hands, and other employees have no
strong organizations to look after their interests in case of accident.
Moreover, of the total number of steam railroad accidents (excluding
shop accidents) in the United States in 1916 sustained by railroad
employees, trainmen sustained but 50 per cent of the fatal accidents
and 42 per cent of the nonfatal accidents. Thus it will be seen that
less than one-fourth of the railroad employees and only one-half
of the railroad accidents are covered by the four railroad brother
hoods.70
NUMBER OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO COMPENSATION ACTS.
Thus far only the theoretical or statutory scope of the compensation
laws has been discussed, without reference to its application to
actual conditions in the several States. But what do the various
inclusions and exclusions really meaii when applied in each State?
How many employees are actually excluded through the nonhazardous, or numerical, or agricultural, or domestic service exemptions ?
Then, again, how does the same statutory exclusion affect different
States ? The exemption of agriculture in Rhode Island, for instance,
is of little importance as compared to a similar exemption in Texas.
An attempt has been made to work Out the number of employees
affected by compensation laws in the various States. The computa
tions are based upon the Federal occupation census of 1910. The
absolute figures of the census of 1910, of course, understate the num
bers as they exist at present, but probably the percentages would
ea40 Stat. at L. 395.
a This law was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on May 17, 1920
(Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart).
70 For a further discussion of this subject see article “ Comparison of experience under workmen’s com
pensation and employers’ liability system s/’ in the March, 1919,issue of the Monthly Labor Review,
pp. 230-248.
3 #
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
remain practically the same except in the ease of such States as haver
witnessed a. marked change iot the character of their industrial de
velopment. These computations, although based, upon a detailed
study of the census figures, are in some eases merely estimates, ami no*
claim is laid to such accuracy as the figures would suggest. The aim
has been, however,, to maintain uniformity of treatment as between
States, so that while the percentage of error for a given State may
be considerable, the percentages given would show the relative status
of each. State with, a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The method adopted has been as follows: The employers- (includ
ing farmers, independent workers, etc.) were first deducted from the
mimber gainfully employed as reported, by the census* the remainder
being the bona fide employees or wage earners; from the latter group
were then, excluded those employees exempted by the provisions of
law as interpreted by the court or commission of each State. It has
been difficult,, and in some cases impossible, to apply the census classi
fications to those of the compensation acts, The classifications as
enumerated in. the census and in. the laws do not agree, mA further
more the census gives occupations only and does not classify persons
employed according to industry or as to whether they are employees.
Table 5 shows the number of persons gainfully' employed;71 the
number of employers,, and the per cent this group, is of the total
gainfully employed; the number of employees covered and not
covered and the per cent these groups are of the total gainfully
employed; and the per cent the employees covered and not covered
are of the toted employee®. The phrase “ gainfully employed77 is used
in the same sense as used in. the census, L e.., it includes all persons
engaged in any gainful occupation irrespective of whether they are
employees, employers, or independent workers,
n The figures in the table do not include Federal employee^ and interstate railroad employees, on the
ground that such, persons are. not subject to State laws* The number, of: such, employees: in each of the
compensation States is given below. The sum of these figures added to the total persons'gainfully em
ployed: (column: L of the table) would correspond; to the total persons gainfully? employed- as given imthe
census of oecupations> 1910..
Alabama............... .........
Al&ska.............................
Arizona............................
California........................
Colorado..........................
Conneetieut....................
Delaware............. ..........
Hawaii............................
Idaho*..............................
Illinois,......... ..........
Indiana...........................
Iowa.................................
Kansas...................
Kentucky.......................
Louisiana........................
Maine.............. ................
...
IS,917
1,225
7,109
4% 882,
20,138
10,864
3,807
3,142
7j 598
105,210
43; 644
40,093
38,601
24,429
19,872
10,909
Maryland................
Massachusetts___
•Michigan.................
Minnesota........................
Missouri.................
Montana..................
Nebraska............... .
Nevada.................. .
New Hampshire,
New Jersey.............
New Mexico......... .
New York...............
North^Dakota-------____
,Oklahoma,. —.........
Oregon, ...................
17,i&5
33,414
32,186
4^919
46,974
19,40223> 220.
3,761
5; 950
3$, 502
7,625
105,850
9,809
74,952
16^210
Paimsyirama..........
Porto Rico....................
Rhode Island..............
South: Dakota, .............
'Tennessee......................
Texas.............................
U tah...............................
Vermont........................
Virginia.........................
Washington-...............
West Virginia..............
Wisconsin.....................
W yoming......................
Total...................
134,3-18
1,567
6,977"
8,090
25,771
52,147
9> 511
5,057
32; 59 3
33,212
22,83G
30,252
12,841
1,282,090
S C O P E
T a b l e 5*— ESTIMATES
O F
T H E -
81
L A W S .
OF THE NU M BER AND P E E CENT OF PERSONS AFFEC TED B Y
c o m p e n s a t io n a c t s .
[The estimates of’ “ employees covered by act” in this table are made on* the assumption'that all elections
provided Tor by law have been;mado. Owing to lack of definite information, no estimates have been made
of employees unprotected because'of failure of employer to elcct under elective acts.]
State*
Total
persons
gainfully
em
ployed.1
Per
cent
oftotal
Number. gain
fully
em
ployed.
3
2
1Alabama.,.-.........
Alaska*..................
Arizona................
California.............
Colorado......... .
Connecticut.........
Delaware...... .......
Hawaii............... .
Idaho.-.............
Illinois---------- . . .
Indiana....... „.......
I o w a ....____ . . .
Kansas.................
Kentucky.-...........
Louisiana___. . . .
Maine...............
Maryland.............
Massachusetts. . .
Michigan. . ... ... ..
Minnesota______
Missouri_____ __
Montana..............
Nebraska------- . . .
Nevada................
N ow- Hampshire.
New J ersey......
New Mexico........
New York...........
North. Dakota__
Ohio.....................
Oklahoma...........
Oregon............... .
Pennsylvania___
Porta Rdco..........
Rhode Island'.:..
South Dakota__
Tennessee...........
Tessas________ ...
U ta h .................. .
Vermont_______
Virginia..............
Washington........
W est Virginia__
Wisconsin...........
W yom ing...........
Employers (in
cludes farmers,
independents,
etc.).
977,607
38, 84880, 716.
1,
8*56
058)
318,586.
479,598
82,055
98,052
123,430
2,191,568
993,066
786,,220
582, 732
842,551
659,311
294,548
523,219
1,497,654
1,080,812.
783,-533
1,241,362.
159,345
417,884
41,149
185,.753.
1,035,858
113,872
3,897,994
207,60S
1,844,103
582,419
286,334
2,996,363
392,581
602,146
5,300
18,742
254,804'
101,214
85,985
22, 534
11,309
50*587
616,894
360; 244
36:i, 568*
690'
422,.144l
261,019
SS,.535 '
117,410
235,283
361,579
308,735
489,047
47,883'
210*559
8,668
43)551
171,895
48,510772,297
114^752
522,448
338,365
87,464
577,178
60,536
36,405
210,978
118,097
829,775
438,301
1,504,
864,689
122,029
40,844
40i.SU
139,032:
762.975 , 304r39l
488,289
116,746
425)654*
160^064
862,160
325,263
60,796
17,953
289,
244,924
7-M
Total__ ____ . 32, 551,069- 10,537,449
Noncompensa
tion States (7)‘. 1 4,710,000 2,901,360
U . S. civilian em
ployees ®...........
771,117
Interstate- railread employees *4 1,400,000
61.6
13.6
23.2.
24.1
3L.8:
17.9
27.5'
11.5
41.0
28.1
!
Ernplo:fees.
Per 1
Per
cent
cent
em
em
ployees
Per
Per ployees
not
covered
cent
cent
covered
are
of
oftotai
oftotai
are
of
total
gain Number., : gain
total
em
fully
fully
em
em
em ployees. ployees.
ployed.
ployed.
8
5
9
Govercd:byact.
Number:
4
126,125
10,481
32,.455
611,941
137,,.157
322,211
37-, 447
80,319
50,119
871,890
502,729
266,986
108,388253,281
140,239
150,305
188,433
1,109,134
597,585
379,349
497,632,
56,826
146* 034
24,746
79,680
30.3
45.9
49.7
50.1
39.6
30.1
22.4
15.7
33.4
39*2
39.4
30. Cf
50. 4r
21.1
23.4
16.6
42..$
19.8
55.3
28.3
58.1
30.5
m3
15.4
14.9T
56.0
52.8
57.-5
33.5
33.7
3&.9
23,9
37.6
37.7
29i-5
861,963
20$073
2,503,020
43,480
1,008,813
87,522.
96„910
2,149,887
68,199
172,915
53,997
145,619
306,777
60,396
50>£42
209,058
191,458
212,812
405,009
1#; 857-
32.4
15,450,,139
G
7
13.1
20.2
31.7
19.8
39; 1
18.9
41.6
10.2
11.3
12.7
33.6
31.2
52.4
76; %
63.1
81.9
62,9
92.6
68.7
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9'
60.2.
35.2
72.9
45.9
87.8
83.1
79.0
20:5
34.3
14..7
18.&
33.7
66.1
50.9
70.4.
76.2
56.0
20.6
37.3
63.1
39.8
64. a
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
33.9
49.1
29.6
23.8
44.0
.2
39.8
15.9
23.8
17.0
26.9
35.6
9.0
32.-7
36.9'
12.4
15.3
37,8 '
99.8
30.7
80.1
46.8
76.3
35.9
48.7
88.8
20*5
82.9
58..0
37.247.9
74.4
55.2
45.6
51.5
80.1
75.4
46.3
69.3
19.9
53.2
23.7
64.1
51.3
11.2
79.5
17.1
42.0
62.8
52.1
25.6
41.8
54.4
48.5
19.9
24.6
53.7
47.5. 0,564,381
2Q..2.
70.2
29.8
1,808,640'
2 38.4
U,400,000
100.0
12..9
27.040.2
57.8
43.0
249,336
23,007
29,519
192*091
80,215
67.2
71,402
48.-1
075
6,424
82.3
40. .6
22,784
39.8
702,784
50.6
130,093
33.9
158,716 .
18.6
1=84,654
30.1 . 167,126
21.3 ' 258,053
51.0'
55,7.08
36.0
217,376
74.1
153,237
55.3
121,648
48i 1’
100,449
40.1 ■ 254,688
35.7
54,636
34.9
61,301
60.1
7,735
42.9
62,522.
83.2
2,000J
2
17.6
64.2 . 622,677
20.9 , 49,367
54.7
312,842
15.0
156,532
33,8
101,960
71.7
269,-318
17.4
263,-846. .
35,604
70.6
25.6
38,884
245,855
17.6.
20.4
49.5
20,789
36.6
41,279
27.4
249.526
180,085
3D. 2
50; 0.
52,778
47.0
131,888
32; 7 ' 22,985.
22;
45, m
338,248
2 61.6
771,117
Not covered by
act.
25.5
59.4
36,6
18.1
25.2
14.9
26.4
6.2
18.4
32.1
67.Z
14»5
18.4.
29.6
22.1
17.0
29; r
100.0
66j4
68.847.6
23.8
36.9
18.1
37.1
7 .4
31.3
44.6
,2t
100.0
loe. a
1 Thes&> figures, based upon thfi1Waited! Stakes Cessnas of. 1910;. do net include Federal employees and^
interstate* railroad employees, en>the ground; that they a»e noi subject to State laws. The total, persons
gainfully employed include employers as well as employees.
2 The Alabama percentages have'been applied to the noncompensation' Spates;
3 Figures as of July 1,1919, taken from United States register.
* Does not include shop employees and others usually subject to State compensation acts.
32
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
As already stated, the absolute figures are based on the Federal
Census of 1910, and therefore would not state the facts as they
exist at present. They are given here primarily for the purpose
of showing the relative numerical importance of the several States
and of emphasizing the large number of persons (over 10,000,000)
who can not possibly be covered under any existing compensation act.
In the number of persons gainfully employed (column 1) Federal em
ployees and interstate railroad employees have not been included, on
the ground that they are not subject’ to State laws. The percentages
employers, employees covered by the act, and employees not covered
by the act are of the total gainfully employed (cols. 3, 5, and 7) are
given chiefly to show to what extent the number of employees is
affected by different industrial conditions. As would be expected, in
agricultural States the percentage of employees is relatively small,
while in industrial States it is large. The eight States in which over
50 per cent of persons gainfully employed belong to the employing
class are agricultural States,72 while the four most intense industrial
States have a small employing class.73 The last two columns (8 and
9) show the percentage of employees theoretically covered and not
covered by the acts. As already explained, it is assumed that all
employers in elective States subject to the compensation act have
accepted its provisions.
In computing the percentages of employees subject to the acts
proper numerical deductions have been made for all the exclusions
and exemptions except casual laborer, those not employed for the
purpose of the employer’s business, and employments not conducted
for gain. For these no separate deductions were made, because a
large proportion of such employments are automatically excluded
through the domestic service, numerical, and nonhazardous exemp
tions. Furthermore, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to com
pute with any degree of accuracy the number engaged in such
employments.
It will be noted that of the 32,551,969 persons gainfully employed
in the 45 States and Territories having compensation laws, 10,537,449
or 32.4 per cent, belong to the employing or independent class, while
15,450,139, or 47.5 per cent, represent employees covered by compen
sation acts, and 6,564,381, or 20.2 per cent, are employees not
covered. Approximately 80 to 85 per cent of the employing class
are farmers or home-farm laborers. On the same basis the 7 non
compensation States74 have approximately 1,808,640 employees.
I
*2 .Alabama, 61.6; Oklahoma, 58.1; Texas, 57.5; South Dakota, 56; North Dakota, 65.3; Tennessee,
52.8; Nebraska 50.4; Kentucky, 50.1.
73 Rhode Island, 14.9; Massachusetts, 15.7; New Jersey, 16.6; Connecticut, 17.9. The small percentage
of employers in the two agricultural Territories of Hawaii (11.5) and Porto Rico (15.4) is due to the large
plantation system, employing many laborers.
71 Including District of Columbia.
S C O P E
O F,
T H E
33
L A W S .
The total number of employees, therefore, in the 52 States and Terri
tories deprived of the benefits of workmen’s compensation legislation
is over 8,000,000. In addition, there are about 1,400,000 interstate
railroad employees not subject to State acts and for which no Federal
compensation law has been enacted.
Table 6 shows the States arranged in the order of the percentage
of employees covered:
T a b le
6 .—COMPENSATION STATES A R R AN G ED IN DESCENDING
CENTAGE OF EM PLO YEES COVERED.
ORDER
OF PER
[The estimates of ‘‘ employees covered” used in this.table are made on the assumption that all elections'
provided for by law have been made. Owing to lack of definite information no estimates have been,
made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to elect under elective acts.]
Per cent employees cov
ered are of—
State.
Per cent employees not
covered are of—
Total
employees.
Total
gainfully
employed.
Total
employees.
1
2
3
Total
gainfully
employed.
4
99.8
92.6
83.2
82.3
0.2
7.4
0.2
6.2
Pennsylvania _ ........... ....................
Massachusetts............................................................
Michigan.....................................................................
Rhode Island.............................................................
Connecticut ..............................................................
New York..................... ............................................
West Virginia............................................................
88.8
87.8
83.1
82.9
81.9
80.1
80.1
71.7
74.1
55.3
70.6
67.2
64.2
50.0
11.2
12.2
16.9
17.1
18.1
19.9
19.9
9.0
10.2
11.3
14.5
14.9
15. 9
12.4
Indiana............... *......................................................
Minnesota...................................................................
Ohio.............................................................................
Nevada........................................................................
California..................................................................
Wisconsin...................................................................
Utah .........................................................................
Maine ........................................................................
Nebraska.....................................................................
79.4
79.0
76.3
76.2
76.2
75.4
74.4
72.9
70.4
50.6
48.1
54. 7
60.1
57.8
47.0
49.5
51.0
34.9
20.6
21.0
23. 7
23.8
23.8
24.6
25. 6
27.1
29. ^
13.1
12. 7
17.0
18.8
18.1
15.3
17.0
Idaho ........................................................................
Missouri.......................................................................
Colorado...........*..........................................................
Delaware
.........................................................
Kentucky...................................................................
68. 7
66.1
63.1
62. 9
62. 7
60.2
40.6
40.1
43.0
46.1
33.9
30.1
31.3
33.9
36.9
37.1
37.3
39.8
18.4
20. 5
25.2
26. 4
20.2
19.8
South Dakota...........................................................
New Hampshire........................................................
Illinois.........................................................................
Vermont......................................................................
Arizona........................................................................
Washington................................................................
Montana......................................................................
58. 0
56.0
55. 4
55.2
52.4
51.5
50.9
25.6
42. 9
39. 8
36.6
40.2
39.2
35. 7
42.0
44.0
44.6
44.8
47. 6
48.5
49.1
18.4
33. 7
32.1
29. 7
36. 6
36.9
34.3
Oregon.........................................................................
Texas...........................................................................
North Dakota............................................................
Wyoming....................................................................
Maryland....................................................................
Virginia.......................................................................
48. 7
47.9
46. 8
46.3
45. 9
45.6
33. 8
20.4
20.9
32. 7
36.0
27. 4
51.3
52.1
53.2
53.7
54.1
54.4
35. 6
22.1
23. 8
37. 8
41.6
32. 7
Tennessee....................................................................
Kansas .......................................................................
Oklahoma...................................................................
Louisiana....................................................................
Alabama......................................................................
Alaska..........................................................................
New Mexico...............................................................
Porto Rico..................................................................
37.2
36.9
35. 9
35.2
33.6
31.2
30. 7
20.5
17.6
18. 6
15.0
21.3
12.9
27.0
17.6
17.4
62.8
63.1
64.1
64.8
66. 4
68.8
69.3
79.5
29. 6
31. 7
26.9
39.1
25.5
59.4
39. 8
67.2
70.2
47.5
29.8
20.2
New Jersey.................................................................
Hawaii.........................................................................
..........
Average........................................................
172 3 08 °— 2 0 — Bull. 275—
*
IS. 9
14. 7
34
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
Columns 2 and 4 show what proportion the number of employees
covered and not covered is of the total gainfully employed in the
State. By bringing the two classes of percentages into juxtaposition
the effect of the industrial character of the States in determining
the percentage of gainfully employed persons subject to an act is
brought out; for example, Illinois (55.4 per cent) and South Dakota
(58 per cent) have nearly the same percentage of employees covered,
but in industrial Illinois these constitute 39.8 per cent of the total
gainfully employed, whereas in agricultural South Dakota they con
stitute only 25.6 per cent.
New Jersey, with 99.8 per cent of its employees covered, heads the
list of States, while Porto Rico, with 20.5 per cent, stands at the
bottom. Nine States cover over 80 per cent, 18 over 70 per* cent,
24 over 60 per cent, and 31 over 50 per cent. One covers only 20
per cent, 8 cover less than 40 per cent, and 14 less than 50 per cent.
The States which include only hazardous employments stand lowest
in the scale; next come the numerical-exemption States, and these
are followed by those excluding agriculture and domestic service
only. Naturally there are deviations from the group by individual
States. Texas, for example, because of the exclusion of her dominant
industry—agriculture—has fewer of her employees covered than
most of the hazardous States. On the other hand, Rhode Island,
which excludes all employers having less than 5 employees, has a
higher percentage of employees covered than California, which
excludes only agriculture and domestic service. Table 7 shows
the effect of the three main exclusions upon the number of employees
covered:
S C O P E
T a b le
O F
T H E
35
L A W S .
^ —COMPENSATION STATES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO EM PLOYM ENTS
E X C L U D E D AN D PER CEN T OF EM PLO YEE S COVER ED IN EACH.
[The estimates of employees excluded used in this table are made on the assumption that all elections
provided for by law have been made. Owing to lack of definite information no estimates have been
made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to elect under elective acts.]
All employments covered.
Per cent
of em-
State.
Agriculture and
domestic service
excluded.
State.
covered.
N. J.........
Hawaii
92.6
P a........
Mass. 3..
M ich...
W. Va.
I n d ....
Minn.3.
Nev—
Calif.. .
Nebr...
Idaho..
Iowa 3- .
S. Dak.
N. Dak
Per cent
of em
ployees
covered.
87.8
83.1
80.1
79.4
79.0
76.2
76.2
70.4
68.7
62.7
58.0
46.8
Numerical exclusions.
State.
Per cent
of em-
Nonhazardous
exclusions.
State.
covered.
R. I . . .
Conn.4
N. Y ..
Ohio 4.
W is ...
Utah..
M e ....
M o ....
Colo...
Del.1..
K yA.
V t.3 ...
Tex.*..
V a . ...
Tenn.1
Ala.3..
P. R ..
82.9
81.9
80.1
76.3
75.4
74.4
72.9
66.1
63.1
62.9
60.2
55.2
47.9
45.6
37.2
33.6
20.5
N. H .i..........
Ill..................
Wash.3.........
Mont----------Oreg.............
W yo.3...........
Md.3.............
Okla.3...........
L a.................
N. Mex.1. . . ,
Per cent
of em
ployees
covered.
56.0
55.4
52.4
51.5
50.9
48.7
46.3
45.9
36.9
35.9
35.2
31.2
30.7
1 All public employees exempted.
8 Hawaii exempts employments not in the usual course of the employer's business and those not con
ducted for gain.
3 Public employee^ partially exempted.
* Agriculture and domestic service not specifically exempted.
Taking the median in each group as a basis of comparison there
is a difference of from 13 to 20 per cent between each two groups
of States; 96.2 being the median for the two States including all
employments; 76.2 per cent for the 13 States excluding agriculture
and domestic service; 63.1 per cent for the 17 numerical-exemption
States; and 46.3 for the 13 nonhazardous-exemption States.
The relative importance of the principal exclusions is shown more
clearly in the following table, in which the exclusions for each State
have been divided into their main constituent elements; i. e., agri
culture, domestic service, and numerical and nonhazardous exemptions.
The purpose of this subdivision is to show what relation each indi
vidual exemption bears to the total number of employees excluded
and also to the total number of employees in the State. The agri
culture and domestic service exclusions have been put in separate
columns, irrespective of whether these employments were exempted
specifically or through the numerical or nonhazardous exclusions.
36
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
T a b l e 8 . — ESTIM ATED
NUM BER OF EM PLOYEES E X C L U D E D U N D ER COMPENSATION
ACTS AN D PER CENT OF SUCH E X C L U D E D EM PLO YEE S W H O AR E EX C L U D E D BE
CAUSE OF E M PLO YM EN T IN AGR ICU LTU RE , DOMESTIC SERVICE, NON HAZAR D O U S
EM PLOYM ENTS, ETC.
{The estimates of employees excluded used in this table are made on the assumption that all elections
provided for by law have been made. Owing to lack of definite information, no estimates have been
made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to elect under elective acts.]
Total employees
excluded.
State.
Number.
Per
cent.
Of total employees excluded, per
cent excluded by—
NonhazNonhazardous
Domes Numer ardous
Domes Numer
Agri
ical
and
Agri
ical
and
tic
serv
tic
serv
exemp
other
culture.
culture.
exemp
other
ice.
ice.
tions.! exemp
tions.! exemp
tions.
tions.
Ala........
Alaska..
Ariz.......
C a lif....
Colo.......
249,336
23, t)67
29,519
192,091
80,215
66.4
68.8
47.6
23.8
36.9
47.1
19.0
41.9
62.5
40.4
26.8
19.5
18.6
37.5
29.5
Conn___
Del........
Hawaii..
Idaho. . .
Ill...........
71,402
22,075
6,424
22,784
702,784
18.1
37.1
7.4
31.3
44.6
30.6
41.0
83.7
19.1
49.5
36.5
93.4
16.3
25.5
Ind........
Iowa___
Kans___
fy....
L a.........
130,093
158,7x6
18^, 6o4
167,i26
258,053
20.6
37.3
63.1
39.8
64.8
68.5
52.4
25.0
51.4
48.7
31.5
19.4
17.3
39.4
27.4
Me.........
Md.........
Mass___
M ich ....
Minn___
55,708
217,376
153,237
121,648
100,449
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
41.8
26.9
23.9
64.6
57.6
37.4
31.5
57.3
35.4
40.6
20.8
*Mo
Mont----Nebr.. . .
Nev.......
N .H ....
254,68354,636
61,301
7, ^35
62,522
33.9
49.1
29.6
23.8
44.0
39.5
41.7
61.2
69.0
22.7
37.4
22.2
38.8
31.0
22.1
23.1
N . J........
N M ex.
N .Y ....
N. Dak..
Ohio-----
2,000
45,289
622 677
49,367
312,842
.2
69.3
19.9
53.2
23.7
58.5
24.1
73.2
34.6
15.4
63.2
26.8
41.7
O k la ....
Oreg----P a.........
P. R ----R. I ........
156,532
101,960
269,318
263,846
35,604
64.1
51.3
11.2
79.5
17.1
38.3
29.6
42.7
76.4
18.7
18.0
19.8
57.3
18.2
50.4
4.5
39.2
50.6
3.0
30.9
2.4
S. D ak ..
Tenn—
Tex.......
U ta h ....
V t ..........
38,884
245,855
333,243
20,789
41,279
42.0
62.8
52.1
25.6
44.8
68.1
35.4
55.1
50.8
39.8
31.9
32.5
28.9
35.7
30.2
19.7
9.5
13.5
30.0
12.3
6.5
V a .........
W ash. . .
W . V a...
W is.......
W yo —
249,526
180,085
52,778
131,888
22,985
54.4
48.5
19.9
24.6
53.7
43.5
28.5
65.6
48.0
53.0
36.5
20.3
31.8
42.4
18.6
20.0
Total.. 6,564,381
29.8
40.6
35.2
8.2
....
Of total employees, per cent ex
cluded by—
21.0
.2
5.1
61.3
39.5
17.8
13.4
8.9
8.9
10.9
13.9
.2
30.1
31.3
13.0
20.0
14.9
14.9
19.9
22.5
5.6
15.2
3.6
8.4
25.5
8.5
8.9
13.5
7.4
5.8
11.4
14.1
19.5
15.8
20.4
31.6
6.5
9.4
10.9
15.7
17.6
11.3
14.2
2.9
10.9
12.1
10.1
16.9
6.9
6.0
8.3
5.7
13.4
20.3
18.1
16.4
10.0
12.7
10.9
11.5
7.4
9.7
7.8
40.5
4. 8
38.8
8.2
10.6
12.6
14. 3
9.9
2.9
2.5
24.6
15.2
4.8
60.7
3.2
11.6
10.2
6.4
14.4
8.6
2.9
25.1
25.9
2.4
5.3
1.9
28.5
22.2
28.7
13.0
17.8
13.5
20.4
15.0
9.1
13.5
12.4
4.9
3.5
13.4
7.8
3.4
19.8
9.8
6.3
10.4
10.0
10.9
28.4
23.7
13.8
13.0
11.8
28.4
16.0
12.1
10.5
2.5
6.6
55.4
28.2
9.0
9.2
48.6
.....
” 23.9
41.6
18.8
1.8
36. i
3.4
22.0
12.8
51.8
100.0
4.1
23.7
9.6
51.2
2.6
3.4
42.2
18.7
11.1
24.7
8.4
31.1
5.3
3.7
*
i5.*6
23.0
2.4
.6
17.9
i.5
22.8
.2
15.3
5.6
24.9
.5
2.4
15.2
4.8
1 Does not include agriculture or domestic service.
It will be recalled that 6,564,381, or 29.8 per cent of the total em
ployees, are not covered by compensation legislation in the 45 com
pensation States, and that these exclusions have been brought about
S C O P E
O F
T H E
37
L A W S .
in several ways. It will be noted that of these, 40.6 per cent75 have
been excluded through the exemption of agriculture, 35.2 per cent76
through the exemption of domestic service, 8.2 per cent77 through
the exemption of the small employer, and 16 per cent78 through the
exemption of nonhazardous and other employments. These exclu
sions constitute, respectively, 12.1, 10.5, 2.5, and 4.8 per cent of the
total number of employees.
The per cent each exclusion is of the total exclusion in any given
State depends upon the total number excluded in the State as well
as upon the number of employees in the excluded group. To illus
trate, agriculture might constitute 60 per cent of the total excluded if
farm labor and domestic service only were excluded, but would con
stitute a much smaller percentage of the total if nonhazardous em
ployments also were excluded.
It will be noted that the percentage of total exclusions due to agri
culture alone ranges from 18.7 per cent in Rhode Island to 83.7 per
cent in Idaho, while the exclusion due to domestic service ranges from
15.4 per cent in New Mexico to 93.4 per cent in Hawaii. The per
centage of employees excluded by exempting the small employer is
much less than either the agriculture or domestic service exclusions.
In the foregoing computations as to the number of employees
covered by the compensation laws no distinction has been made be
tween compulsory and elective acts. It has been assumed that all
the employers in the elective States are under the law. •As a matter
of fact, however, this is not true. In some States practically aH
employers have accepted the act, while in others relatively few have
done so. For this reason elective compensation acts have been
severely .criticized. It is maintained that the substitution of the
compensation system for the old liability system has not been brought
about and to this extent elective compensation laws have failed. A
large number of employees must still resort to damage suits and be
subject to expensive litigation in order to be indemnified for indus
trial injuries. In New Hampshire only 19 employers, employing
19,000 persons, were under the compensation law in 1916. These con
stituted less than 25 per cent of the employees potentially covered by
the act and only 13 per cent of the total employees in the State. Very
little reliable information as to the number of employees actually
covered by compensation acts in the elective States is available.
Table 9 gives the estimates furnished by the States themselves:
75 2.,663,123 employees.
76 2,311.829 employees.
77 539,359 employees.
78 1,050,070 employees.
38
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
9 .—NUM BER OF EM PLO YEES W H O M A Y BE BR O U G HT U N D ER COM PENSATION
ACTS A ND NUM BER A C T U A L L Y UN D ER TH E ACTS IN TH E 31 ELECTIVE STATES.
T a b le
Elective State.
Alabama................................
Colorado.... . . . . . ....................
Connecticut.......................... ^
Delaware................................
Indiana...................................
Iowa........................................
Kansas....................................
Kentucky...............................
Louisiana...............................
Maine......... ............................
Massachusetts........................
Michigan....... ........................
Minnesota................ ...........
Missouri..................................
Montana................................
Nebraska................................
Nevada........................ .
New Hampshire...................
New Jersey.............................
New Mexico...........................
O regon...,..............................
Pennsylvania........................
Rhode Island............... .........
South Dakota.....................
Tennessee...................
T e x a s ....................................
..............................
Virginia.. . ..........................
West Virginia.. .................
Wisconsin...............................
Number of
employees
who may be
brought un
der compen
sation acts as
computed by Number of employees actually under acts through employers'
election and number of employers rejecting the act, as esti
United States
Bureau of
mated by the several States.
Labor
Statistics,
based upon
the 1910
census.
126,125
*
10,481
137,157
322,211 7 employers rejected act (1915).
37,447
502,729 4,000 employers (mostly small) rejected act (1917).
266,936 Over 25 per cent of employees, estimated at 30,0(jjp, subject to
act not insured (1916).1
108,388
253,281
140,239
150,305 152.000 (1917).
1,109,134 650.000 (1915).3
597,585 739,496 (1916).
379,349
497,632
56,826 50,386 (1919).
146,034 37 employers rejected act (1915).
24,746 12,981 (1918).
79,680 19,000 (1916).
861,963
20,073
96,910 80-85 per cent {1915).*
2,149, 867
172,915 154,538 (1915).
53, 997
145,619
306,777 206.000 (1916).
50,942
Verm
ont 55.000 (1916). Only one employer has rejected the act.
209,058
212,812 192,561 (1918).
405,009 Over 250,000. 551 employers with 3,000 employees rejected
act (1915).
i Failure to insure supposed to be due to stringent insurance provisions,
a Total subject to act estimated by industrial accident board at 800,000.
s Estimated by writer at 72,500.
HOW ELECTION IS MADE.
Under this head are indicated the* methods required by the laws
for their acceptance or rejection in the 31 States where the elective
system is provided. In 21 States79 the employer is presumed to
accept the act in the absence of positive action rejecting it, while
under the other 10 elective systems he must, institute some action
indicating his purpose to come under the law. In 7 of these States80
he elects by filing acceptances with designated State authorities,
while in 3 States81 election is made either by insuring in authorized
casualty companies or by subscribing to the State fund. In the 21
w Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Missoifri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
so Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
81 Massachusetts, Texas, and West Virginia.
S U IT S
F O R
D A M A G E S .
39
States where the employer is presumed to accept the act the employee
is subject to the same presumption in the absence of positive steps
to reject, while in 9 of the 10 States where the employer must take
positive action acceptance by the employee is presumed until the
negative is shown; the other State, Kentucky, requires the em
ployee to file written notice of acceptance with his employer. In
the original Texas law no option was given the employee in case the
employer elected, but this restriction was repealed in 1917. Such
a provision invalidated the old Kentucky act, and the Texas provi
sion was also questioned, but the Texas supreme court held the ^law
constitutional on all points.
The extent to which employers have accepted the compensation
laws has already been discussed. In most States very few employees
have rejected the acts.
ABROGATION OF DEFENSES,
Under the elective system, as provided in 31 States, acceptance
of the act is induced by the withdrawal or modification of the three
customary common-law defenses of assumed risk, fellow' service, and
contributory negligence in cases where the employer refuses to accept
the act. Employers accepting the compensation act are generally
exempt from damage suits, while those rejecting the act are relieved
of the duty of paying compensation but are subject to actions at
law, with the Usual defenses abrogated. In cases where an employee
rejects the compensation system and sues an employer who has
accepted it the employer usually retains Ms three defenses.
The defenses of assumed risk and fellow service are abrogated
in each of the 31 elective States without restriction. The defense of
contributory negligence, however, is abrogated unqualifiedly only in
17 82 of the 31 States. In 13 States 63 this defense is modified to the
extent that injuries caused by the employee’s intoxication, willful
act, or reckless indifference are not actionable. In 1 State 84 the de
fense remains, but the burden of proof is shifted to the employer.
SUITS FOR DAMAGES.
When both the employer and employee have accepted the compen
sation act the bringing of suits for damages under either the common
or statute laws of liability is forbidden absolutely in 16 States.85 In
the other 29 States employees are permitted to sue upon certain con
82 Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Main©, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
83 Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
84 New Hampshire.
S3 Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
40
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
ditions, generally some neglect on the part of the employer. Table
10 shows in which States and upon what conditions employees are
allowed to bring actions at law:
T a b le
1 0 .—CONDITIONS U N D ER W H IC H SUITS FOR DAMAGES M AY BE BR O U G H T
W H E N BO TH PAR TIES COME U N D E R ACT.
Not permitted.
Permitted.
Conditions under which they are permitted.
A1 ham.i
Arizona...........
California........
After injury. Defense of contributory negligence alone remains.
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
Connecticut. . . If employer fails to insure his risk.
Delaware......... If employer fails to insure his risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Hawaii..............
Illinois............. If employer fails to insure his risk.
Indiana........... If employer fails to insure his risk.
Iowa................. If employer fails to insure his risk.
Kentucky.......
Maine.................
Defenses abrogated.
11 injury is due to deliberate intention of employer, illegal employment
of minors, or failure to insure.
Maryland........ If injury is due to deliberate intention of employer or failure to insure.
Defenses abrogated.
Massachusetts
Michigan.........
If employer, insuring in State fund, is in default on insurance premiums.
Missouri..........
Montana.........
Nebraska........
Nevada...........
New Hamp
shire.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer, insuring in State fund, is in default on insurance premiums.
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
If employer is in default on insurance premiums.
In lieu of compensation, after injury.
Minnesota.........
New Jersey.__
New Mexico
Vermont...........
Virginia.............
New Y o r k .. . . If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
North Dakota. If employer fails to insure his risk, or illegally emplays minors.
Ohio................. If injury is due to willful act of employer, violation of safety law, or if
employer is in default on insurance premiums. Defenses abrogated.
Oklahoma....... If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
Oregon............. If injury is due to willful act of employer, or if employer is in default on
insurance premitims. Defenses abrogated.
Pennsylvania. If employer fails to insure his risk.
Porto Rico___ If injury is due to employer’s willful or criminal negligence.
Rhode Island. If employer fails toinsure his risk.
South Dakota.. If employer fails toinsure his risk.
Tennessee........ If employer fails toinsure his risk.
Texas............... If employer’s willful or gross negligence causes death, or if employer
charges part of insurance premium against employee.1
Utah................ If employer fails to insure his risk when injury is caused by employer’s
negligence (defenses abrogated); if injury causes death (defenses remain
and employer’s negligence must be proved); if injury is due to employ
er’s willful misconduct.
Washington... If injury is due to employer’s deliberate intention.2
West Virginia.. If injury is due to employer’s deliberate intention,2 or if employer is in
default on insurance premiums.
W is c o n s in .
Wyoming......... i ................................
1 In addition to compensation.
2Excess damages in addition to compensation.
It will be noted that 9 States 86 permit suit if the injury was due
to a willful act, willful misconduct, or gross negligence of the em
ployer; 24 87 permit it in case the employer fails to insure his risk or
is in default on insurance premiums; 1 88 if the employer has violated
86 Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
87 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
88 Ohio.
S U IT S
F O R
D A M A G E S .
41
the safety laws; 2 89 if he has illegally employed minors; 1 90 if em
ployer charges part of insurance premiums against his employees;
and 1 91 if the injury causes death. In most of the above cases the
injured employee has the option of either accepting compensation or
suing for damages, but he may not do both. In Washington and
West Virginia, however, where the injury is due to the employer’s
deliberate intention, the emploj^ee may bring suit for excess dam
ages in addition to receiving compensation, while in Texas the
employee may sue for damages in addition to compensation if the
employer has charged part of the insurance premium against the
employee.
When employees accept a compensation act, they must do so before
the injury, except in 2 States,92 where the law reserves the right to
an injured employee to bring suit or accept compensation after the
accident, and in both States the defense of contributory negligence
alone remains available to the employer. Possibly this provision
explains in part why only 19 employers have accepted the act in
New Hampshire. There is little inducement for an employer to come
under a compensation act if he is also to be subjected to damage
suits. In Arizona the law is compulsory, and consequently employ
ers have no option. The former Montana statute, which fixed upon
the employer a double liability by compelling him to contribute to
an insurance fund and leaving him still liable for damages, was
declared unconstitutional by the court. The failure to enact a Fed
eral compensation law for interstate railroad employees has been in
part due to the unwillingness of the railroad brotherhoods to give up
their right to sue for damages.
If the compensation system is accepted by the employer but re
jected by the employee, the defenses remain available to the former
in 29 States,93 but in Alaska, Iowa, and Nevada the defense of
assumed risk is abrogated if the employer has violated the safety
laws and regulations; in Kansas all defenses are abrogated if the
employer has been guilty of willful negligence; in Delaware dam
ages can not be recovered if the injury is caused by the employee’s
willful intention to injure himself or another, intoxication, failure
to use safeguards, violation of law, or reckless indifference to safety,
while in West Virginia the employee surrenders his right of action
if he remains in the service of his employer after the latter elects
to come under the act.
89 Kentucky and North Dakota.
90 Texas.
« Utah.
92 Arizona and New Hampshire.
93 Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
4 2
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
SPECIAL CONTRACTS.
In order to secure to the employee the benefits contemplated by the
act, without loss by reason of ill-considered and inadequate settle
ments; the law usually provides that an employee can not waive his
right to compensation benefits or otherwise contract with his em
ployer for the purpose of modifying the latter’s liability under the
law. Such waivers are absolutely forbidden in 19 States,94 except
that in 4 of these States 05 the employer and employees may enter
into a hospital contract. In 19 States 96 the employer is permitted
to establish and maintain substitute insurance schemes or benefit
funds, the benefits of which must equal those provided in the com
pensation act. In 3 States97 only existing substitute insurance
schemes are permitted. The laws of 3 States98 make no provision
in this regard, except that in New Mexico employers and employees
may enter into an agreement to maintain a hospital. If the em
ployee makes any contribution to the fund or substitute system,
he must receive additional benefits corresponding to the amount of
’ his contribution. This, of course, does not apply in Oregon, where
the law places a part of the burden of cost upon the employee.
In four States 99 employees, under certain conditions, are permitted
to waive their compensation rights. In Kansas and Ohio blind
employees only are permitted to waive such rights, while in Con
necticut all physically defective employees are permitted to do so.
In Alabama, however, not only are settlements allowed if in “ sub
stantial” conformity with the law, but the courts are authorized to
approve settlement agreements calling for less than the statutory
benefits if they are “ in the interest of the employee.”
BURDEN OF COST.
With the single exception of Oregon, the burden of cost for com
pensation is entirely on the employer. In this State employees are
required to contribute one cent for each day or part of day worked,
the contributions being deducted from their wages. Such contribu
tions have ranged from 6 to 10 per cent of the total premiums con
tributed by the employers. The remainder of the burden is borne
by the employer, except that the State pays a subsidy of one-seventh
of the amount contributed by both employers and employees. For
84 Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and
W yoming.
93 Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and Washington.
98 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Min
nesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
Maine, Michigan, and Nebraska.
88 New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Porto Rico.
»»Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, and Ohio.
B tT B D E K
O F
C O S T .
43
merly Ohio and West Virginia, also, required the employees to bear
a part of the compensation costs, 10 per cent being required in
each case.
Also the laws of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Washington
specifically authorize the withholding of sums from employees for
medical and hospital services. In Montana employers and employees
may enter into an agreement to maintain jointly a hospital fund, the
charges for which amount to approximately $1 a month; in Idaho
employers may require employees to pay $1 a month for medical
services; in Nevada and Utah the charges against the employees are
not to exceed the actual cost of maintenance, while in Washington
employees are required to contribute one-half of the medical expenses.
The laws of Colorado and New Mexico, also, provide that employers
may contract with their employees for surgical and hospital facilities
in lieu of the statutory medical benefits. In the. foregoing far
Western States the employers do not as a rule maintain their own
hospitals, but enter into arrangements with contract hospitals
whereby the latter agree to furnish medical and surgical attention
to employees in case of accident. The terms of the contract usually
require the employees to contribute from SI to $1.50 a month, which
is deducted from their wages and turned over to the hospital.
Under substitute insurance or benefit schemes, employees may be
required to contribute to the fund; but since the laws do not allow
the employer to reduce his liability, the compensation benefits
received by injured employees must equal the compensation scale as
provided in the act plus the employees’ contributions, and conse
quently there is no real tax upon the employee for the statutory
benefits.
In some States certain employers have made a practice of com
pelling their employees to share the cost of compensation. In the
lumber industry in Texas and Louisiana, for example, a large pro
portion of the burden of cost was borne by the employees. To pre
vent this evil, Louisiana amended its law in 1916, making it a mis
demeanor for employers to charge premiums against their employees;
while Texas, with similar intent, also amended its law in 1917 by
subjecting the employer to damage suits in addition to the payment
of compensation. Similar protective provisions have recently been
enacted by other States. At the present time 19 States 1 penalize
the employer if he compels his employees to bear part of the compen
sation costs.
1 California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
44
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
SECURITY OF PAYMENTS.
Since it occasionally happens that employers become insolvent or
meet with a catastrophe and consequently are unable to meet their
pecuniary obligations, it is important that employees be safeguarded
from such or similar contingencies by suitable legislation providing
for security of compensation payments. In the 39 States having
compulsory insurance law^s, such security is reasonably assured, pro
vided, of course, that the risk is actually and adequately insured.
In most of the compulsory insurance States employers have the option
of insuring either in private casualty compaijies or in the State fund
or of providing self-insurance. In many States failure to insure
penalizes the employer either by subjecting him to a fine or by per
mitting the employee to sue for damages. Usually, also, the law
holds the employer and insurer individually liable for compensation.
However, a j'udgment awarding damages is of little service to an
employee if the employer is insolvent. A recent investigation2 in
New York brought out the fact that more than 15,000 employers failed
to give security, although required to insure under the compensation
act. Unfortunately this deplorable situation obtains in most of the
compulsory insurance States. Many of the employers were financially
irresponsible, and awards by the commission arising from claims against
them were often uncollectible. Most of these noninsured employers
are small concerns—stores and the like. Some are extrahazardous
employments whom the commercial carriers would not insure, such
as window cleaners, fishermen, junk dealers, and so on. It has even
been found necessary to permit such employers to carry their own
risk. The State should provide facilities for insurance for every
employer subject to the compensation act and then penalize heavily
those employers who fail to insure. The usual penalty of allowing
the employee to sue for damages with the employer’s defenses removed
is useless in case the employer is insolvent.
When employers are authorized to carry their own risk, they are
usually required to iurnish satisfactory proof of solvency and ability
to meet present and future compensation payments, or to deposit
adequate bonds or other security. In 163of the 31 States permitting
self-insurance employers are required to furnish proof of solvency
or to deposit such security as required by the compensation com
mission or insurance department; while in 15 States4 they must
deposit security in addition to furnishing proof of financial respon
2 Report of investigation by J. F. Connor as commissioner under section 8 of the executive law, in relation
to the management and affairs of the State Industrial Commission, Nov. 17,1919.
a Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.
4 California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska j New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma,Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
S E C U R IT Y
O F
P A Y M E N T S .
45
sibility. In four States5 they are also permitted to insure their
risk in authorized guaranty companies.
Experience as to self-insurance has been reported to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics by the compensation commissions of 21 States.
In 15 of these States no self-insured employer has failed or gone into
the hands of a receiver; three States reported one failure each and
one State reported two failures, but in all cases the compensation
claims were paid either by the receiver or through security which
had been deposited. Only two States reported failures—one small
concern in each State—which resulted in several claims being unpaid.
While the security record of self-insurers has been excellent this
favorable experience may be due in part to good fortune or pure
chance. It is also quite possible that compensation commissions are
not always cognizant of every failure of self-insured employers, be
cause such failures may not be reported to them. This was actually
the case in Illinois. In such cases the injured claimant usually con
sults an attorney, "who takes the matter before a bankruptcy court
and the commission remains in ignorance of the facts.
Another form of security in most of the laws is the provision
making compensation payments preferred claims against the property
of the employer. In fact, this is practically the only security
possessed by employees in the 6 noncompulsory insurance States.
In order to protect the injured employees from themselves and
from creditors, nearly all of the States provide that compensation
payments shall be nonassignable and exempt from attachment or
execution,
INSURANCE RATES AND RESERVES.
The adequacy and reasonableness of insurance premiums are of
vital importance to the employers of the compensation States, since
the burden of cost depends largely upon the insurance rates. When
compensation laws were first enacted there existed no satisfactory
experience upon which to base premium rates. The old employers’
liability experience was unsatisfactory and the experience of foreign
countries was to some extent inapplicable. Called upon suddenly to
produce a schedule of rates, with no reliable data as a basis, the insur
ance carriers were forced to rely upon their “ underwriting judg
ment, ” and the rates thus formulated were generally too high. Since
then, however, with the accumulation of experience and the entrance
of the State into the insurance field as a competitor, rates have been
established more nearly in accordance with the hazards of industry.
The security or solvency of insurance companies depends first,
upon adequate rates and, second, upon adequate reserves. Both
6 Hawaii,Idaho, Oklahoma,and Vermont.
48
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
should be under the strict supervision and regulation of State insur
ance departments. No company can long maintain its solvency
with inadequate rates. Under stress of cutthroat competition the
temptation to reduce rates below the safety level generally becomes
too great to resist. State regulation is necessary to maintain the
solvency of the insurance carrier and to protect the compensation
rights of the injured employees. Notwithstanding these obvious
requirements 186 of the 45 compensation States make no provision as
to rate regulation. The remaining 27 States, including, of course,
those having exclusive State funds, require the approval of rates,
either as to adequacy or reasonableness, by the industrial com
missions or insurance departments.
The absence of proper supervision over insurance rates and re
serves has resulted in several disastrous failures of stock companies
during the past two or three years. Whether the State should, as
maintained by some, either guarantee the solvency of insurance
companies authorized to do business or make good'the losses directly
out of the State treasury where such insolvency is due to lax insur
ance laws or their administration, may be questioned. By no
means, however, should the injured employee be permitted to suffer.
More stringent State regulation over insurance carriers has recently
been in evidence. Idaho and Montana require every company to
deposit bonds with the industrial accident board before it is allowed
to issue an insurance policy. In five States7 the industrial commis
sion or insurance department is authorized to revoke the license of
the carrier if found guilty of unnecessary delay in settling compensa
tion claims.
The provisions as to rates and reserves applicable to private
companies should also apply to State funds. In some of the States
the employer, when insured in the fund, is relieved of all further
liability. The fund therefore becomes the employee’s sole protection.
Nor does any State having such a fund assume liability in case of the
fund’s insolvency. On the contrary, some of the States specifically
disclaim liability beyond the amount of the fund. Since no State
fund has as yet become insolvent the policy of the State as regards
compensation claims in the event of the fund’s insolvency can not be
ascertained. However, its probable attitude may be seen from the
experience in California where the legislature of the State appropriated
over $60,000 to pay claims resulting from the bankruptcy of a private
stock insurance company.
There seems to be no legitimate reason, either, why self-insurers
should not be subject to the same supervision and regulation as to
b Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Min
nesota, Montana, Nebraska,New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island,, South Dakota, and Vermont.
7 Colorado,Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Vermont.
IN S U R A N C E
R A T E S
A N D
R E S E R V E S *
47
security and reserves as those imposed upon the regular insurance
carriers. The filing of a mere financial statement showing assets and
liabilities is an insufficient guaranty of ability to meet long-continuing
payments or to withstand a catastrophe successfully. The financial
statement of a Wisconsin self-insurer showed net assets of $5,000,000,
yet the concern shortly afterwards went into the hands of a receiver.
Self-insured employers should also be required to deposit sufficient
security to meet all reasonable compensation obligations. Such
security may be furnished in various ways: Deposit of cash or bonds;
surety bonds; reinsurance; requiring employers to set up reserves;
purchase of annuities or trust funds in case of death or permanent
disability awards. Reinsurance is frowned upon in some States.
Wisconsin, for example, prohibits self-insurers from taking out
“ deductible average” insurance policies because there exists no
reliable data upon which premium rates may be based. In Colorado,
on the other hand, employers in the more hazardous industries are
required to reinsure losses over $25,000 to $150,000. In Delaware
self-insurers must deposit the full amount of the death award with a
bank or trust company. Industrial commissions should have full
authority to grant, refuse, or revoke permission to self-insure if
satisfactory cause is shown. This discretionary power should include,
in addition to questions of solvency, such matters as the employer’s
attitude toward safety, settlement of claims, discrimination against
cripples, and so on.
MERIT RATING.
The determination of an adequate, just, and reasonable rate for
each industrial risk or process in accordance with its hazard has
been found exceedingly difficult, due to the limited experience or
exposure. In order that the individual rates should reflect the hazard
of the class to which it belongs, it has been found necessary to com
bine the loss experience of each industry classification of all the
insurance carriers and of the several States. These losses when
reduced to a common denominator by the application of reduction
factors representing the relative benefits of the various compensa
tion laws become the basic pure premium rates. From these basic
pure premiums, which are continually modified in the light of addi
tional experience, are computed the premium or final insurance rate
for each classification and for each State. Such rates, while reflecting
the hazard of the whole class, do not take into consideration the
difference in the hazard of individual employers within the class.
Therefore, in order to stimulate accident prevention work and to
promote justice as between employers in the same risk or industry,
various systems of merit rating have been devised, by which the
48
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
employer receives a credit or debit upon the basic rate in accordance
with his loss experience or with the amount of safety work performed.
Merit rating is divided into “ schedule” rating and “ experience”
rating. Under the former credits and debits are based upon the
physical condition of the plant, i. e., upon the presence or absence
of machine guards, fire escapes,*safety organizations, and so on.
Under the latter credits and debits are based upon the actual loss
experience, which should refleet the moral as well as the physical
hazard of the plant. The relative merits of experience versus
schedule rating is a much controverted question. Some States have
adopted one system, some the other, and some a combination of the
two.
While the adoption of a merit-rating scheme may be necessary to
stimulate and reward accident-prevention work, it also introduces
an incentive to pare or deny compensation claims. This incentive
depends largely on the directness of the relationship between the
accident and the cost thereof, i. e., the incentive increases directly
with individual liability and inversely with collective liability. In
order to retain the benefits of merit rating while eliminating the
incentive factor it may be desirable to adopt a merit-rating system,
but to base the employer’s credits and debits not on his cost experience
but upon his accident experience. This would simultaneously pro
mote safety work, insure equity as between individual employers, and
remove the incentive to pare or deny compensation claims.
INJURIES COVERED.
Compensation laws are limited not only as to employments covered
and persons compensated, but also as to injuries covered. No State
holds the employer liable for every injury received by the employee.
As a rule, the injury must have been received in the course of the
employment and must have resulted as a natural consequence there
from; usually, also, injuries due to the employee’s intoxication, will
ful misconduct, or gross negligence are not compensable.
Table 11 shows the laws classified as to kind of injuries, i. e.,
what, and under what condition, injuries are compensable and noncompensable:
IN J U R IE S
(T a b le
1 1 .—COMPENSATION STATES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO INJURIES COVERED
A N D CONDITIONS U N D ER W HICH COMPENSATION IS PAID OR D ENIED.
Exclusions.
Kind of disar
Injuries In
bility.
juries
In
Willful
arising
in
inten
juries
out of
inten
and in course tion
of
Willful tion
to
course
em
of em ploy injure Intoxi miscon ally
Acci
In
cation. duct.
in
self
ploy
dent.1 jury*
flicted
or
(31)
(17)
ment. ment
(34)
(11)
only.
an
by an
(39)
(6)
other.
other.
(36)
(10)
A la___
Alaska .
Ariz___
Calif.
Colo—
Conn.
DelV.*.'
Hawaii
Idaho..
Iil.........
Ind.
Iowa.
Kans...
Ky
La ..
Me
Md
49
C O V E R E D .
Mass.
Mich.
Minn
Mo
Mont
Nebr
N ev..
N .H .
N.J
N . Mev
N. Y
N.Dak
Ohio.
Okla
Oreg
Pa
P . R . . . ...........
R .l
S. Dak.
Tenn
T e x ..
Utah*
Vt .
Va
Wash
W .Va
Wis
W yo.
A la .. .
Alaska
Ariz...
Calif..
Colo...
Conn..
D e l ...
Hawaii
Idaho.
Ill.......
Ind
Iowa
Kans. 7
Ky
La
Me
Md
Mass
Mich
Minn
Mo
Mont
Nebr
Nev
N .H
N. J
N.Mex
N .Y ..
A la .. . A l a ... A la .. .
Alaska Alaska
Occupational diseases.
Excluded—
Violation of
safety Specifi
By
In
appli
word
cally
By
cluded.
ances
“ acci courts.
(6)
,law.
by
or
dent.”
(3)
laws.
(32)
(20)
(13)
Ala.3. A la .. .
A la .. .
Ala
Alaska ...........
Ariz
Calif. . Calif..
Colo...
Colo
Colo
Conn.. Conn.4
D e l ... D e l ... Del.5. . D e l.. D e l ... D e l ... Del
Hawaii Hawaii
Idaho. Idaho.
Idaho. Idaho.
Ill
Ind e.. I n d ... Ind
I n d ... I n d ... Ind
Iowa
Iow a.. Iowa
Iowa.
Kans.. Kans. 8
Kans.8
Ky.V.*. Ky
K y - . . K y .... K y
L a___ L a___
L a___ L a___ La
Me
M e .... Me9
Md.10.. M d ....
M d .... Md.8. . Md
Mass *
Mich.
Mich
Minn.10
Minn.. Minn
Minni2
M o .... M o.. . . Mo
M o .... M o .... Mo
Mont..
Nebr..
Nebr.. Nebr.&
Nev
N e v ... Nev
N.H.13
N .H .. N .H
*N.*J
N .J ... N.J
N. Mex
N.Mex. N.Mex
N.Mex
N. Y
N . Y . . N. Y 8
N.Dak N.Dak
Ohio.
Ohio14 Ohio
Okla
Okla
Okla
Okia.. Okla
Oreg.10
Oreg
Oreg
Pa
Pa 3
Pa.is Pa
P. R . .
P.R .6. P . R . . P.R.16 P .R . .............
P. R . .
R .l
R .l
R . l . . . R .l
S.Dak. S.Dak. S.Dak.
S.I>ak. S.Dak. S.Dak.
S. Dak.
Tenn.. Tenn.. Tenn
Tenn
Tenn.. Tenn..
T ex..
Tex.1?
T e x .. Tex. . . Tex
Utah..
Utah18 Utah
V t ___ V t . . . . Vt
V t . . . . Vt
Vt
Va
V a . . . . Vn
V a . ... V a . . . . Va
Va
Wash. Wash.!
Washis W ach
W .Va .20
W .V a. W .V a. W .VaW .Va.21
Wis.22.
Wis
W yo.23
1
W yo.« 1 W yo.
1
1
Calif.
Conn.
Hawaii*
Mass.1*
N.Dak11
.
...... ......
Wis.
1 Includes such expressions as: Personal injury by accident or accidentally sustained; accidental injuries;
and injuries caused by a fortuitous event.
2 The word “ accident” does not appear in description of compensable injuries,
a For reasons not connected with the employment.
4 Willful and serious misconduct.
e Deliberate or reckless indifference to safety,
e Also while willfully intending to commit a crime.
i Except when going to and from work.
6 Solely.
9 Without employer’s knowledge.
10 By implication.
11 Included by decision of court or commission.
By fellow employee for personal reasons.
13 Violation oflaw.
H Court held that injuries must be caused by or incidental to employment.
** While actually engaged in furtherance of employer’s business.
Gross negligence of employee sole cause.
17 Also injuries caused by act of God.
*3 Accidents arising either out of or in the course of employment are eompensahle.
is Sustained on premises of plant or in course of employment away from plant.
20 In course of or resulting from employment.
21 Disobedience to rules.
22 Growing out of or incidental to employment.
23 Sustained as a result of employment and while at work.
24 Culpable negligence of employee.
172308°—20—Bull. 275------ 4
5 0
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
ACCIDENTS* VERSUS INJURIES.
But what constitutes an injury I In most States an injury is lim
ited to what is commonly known as an accident. There must be a
sudden and tangible happening, producing an immediate or prompt
result, and occurring from without. In other words, it must be o f a
traumatic nature. Industrial diseases, especially the slow-developing
ones, would therefore be excluded by this definition, and such has
been the position taken by the courts of the several States, with the
exception of Massachusetts. Thirty-four States,8 in describing com
pensable injuries, use some variation of the word “ accident/7or words
of similar import, such as personal injuries by accident, accidental
injuries, or injuries caused by some fortuitous event. A few States
restrict the meaning of an injury still further by definition. In
Louisiana and Nebraska,, for example, an accident means an unex
pected or unforeseen event, happening suddenly or violently, with or
without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms
of an injury; while in Oregon a compensable injury must be caused
by violent or external means. The courts, however,, have been rather
liberal in interpreting this phrase. Compensation has been granted
for sunstroke,9 frostbite,10 neuritis from vibration of punch press,11
gas poisoning,12 acute arsenical poisoning from inhaling fumes from a
furnace,11 nervous shock,14 angina pectoris,15 pneumonia,16 typhoid,17
anthrax,18 arteriosclerosis/9 insanity,19 infection due to compulsory
vaccination/9 tuberculosis,22 lead poisoning/9 facial paralysis/9 blind
ness due to inhalation of noxious gases/9 erysipelas,28 ivy poisoning,27
and aggravation of a preexisting disease.28
Eleven States 29 do not employ the term “ accident” in describing
compensable injuries, limiting themselves simply to “ injuries” or
“ personal injuries.77 The meaning of this broader term, as inter
preted by the commissions and courts, is confusing and con
flicting- Apparently it was the intent of the legislature in several of
8 Alabama* Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,.New Mexico
New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
9 California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Wisconsin.
11 Illinois.
12 Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and. Wisconsin.
w California.
15 Massachusetts and New York.
16 Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
17 Michigan and Wisconsin.
18 Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania*.
19 Massachusetts.
22 Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin;
26 Connecticut.
27 New York.
28 California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Ohio.
29 California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota* Ohio, Texas,
West Virginia, and Wyoming.
IN J U R IE S
C O V E R E D .
51
the States to include occupational diseases when it substituted the
word “ injury” for the British term “ injury by accident,” but with
the single exception of Massachusetts, the courts, where cases have
come before them, have ruled against the inclusion of such diseases.
Of the States employing the term “ injuries,” Iowa and Wyoming
have specifically excluded occupational diseases by law; in Michigan,
Ohio, and Texas such diseases have been excluded by the courts. In
New Hampshire the law declares the employer liable “ for any injury
arising out of and in course of employment” ; but as it also announces
its purpose “ to establish a new system of compensation for accidents
to workmen,” and repeatedly uses the term “ accident” in prescribing
the methods of administration, it is probable that occupational dis
eases are excluded. In West Virginia, although the phraseology of
the law favors more strongly the inclusion of occupational diseases,
such diseases are not compensated. In the other States using the
word “ injuries/’ occupational diseases are included either by law or
interpretation of court or commission,
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES.
Of the 46 workmen’s compensation jurisdictions in the United
States, only 7 (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North
Dakota, Wisconsin, and the Federal Government) provide compen
sation for occupational diseases. In Massachusetts, North Dakota,
and the United States this inclusion has been effected through the
commissions and courts, whereas in the other States it has been
brought about by statutory enactment. In all the other States, as
already noted, occupational diseases are excluded, in theory at least,
from the operation of the compensation acts. This exclusion has
been brought about (1) by limiting the scope of the law to injuries
by “ accident,” (2) by adverse rulings of the courts and commissions;
and (3) by express provisions in the compensation acts themselves.
What constitutes an “ occupational disease” under the various
compensation laws ? This is a question perennially confronting the
courts and industrial commissions in the United States. In those
States in which industrial diseases are supposed to be excluded, com
pensation benefits have been awarded for anthrax, dermatitis, arsenic
poisoning, fume poisoning, occupational neuritis, housemaid’s knee,
and so on. In each case, however, the court or commission always
took pains to point out that the particular injury in question was
compensable because it was not an “ occupational disease.” Com
pensation was granted not because it was a disease but because it
satisfied in other respects the requirements of a^eompensable injury
as defined by the statute or as interpreted by the court. When, then,
is an occupational disease not an occupational disease ?
52
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
Occupational diseases may be classified according to cause and
and nature of injury, as follows:
1. Diseases due to gradual absorption of poisons (lead poisoning).
2. Diseases in which the poison or germ enters the system through
a break in the skin (anthrax).
3. Skin affections from acids or other irritants (eczema, derma
titis) .
4. Diseases due to fumes or dusts entering the system through
respiratory organs (tuberculosis, gas poisoning).
5. Diseases due to vibrations or constant use of particular members
(neuritis, telegrapher’s cramp, housemaid’s knee).
6. Miscellaneous diseases (caisson disease, miner’s nystagmus).
There are, however, two additional classes of diseases, nonoccupational in character, for which compensation is usually granted: (1)
Those diseases, such as typhoid fever, erysipelas, pneumonia, and ivy
poisoning, which arise out of and are proximately caused by the
employment. These diseases, to be compensable, however, must
have had their origin in the employment and must be definitely
traceable to it. (2) Those diseases which either result from an acci
dent or are aggravated, accelerated, or developed by the accident.
In these cases compensation is awarded not for the disease per se but
for the results of the accident. Had the accident not occurred the
disease would presumably never have developed; consequently the
resulting disability is justly attributable to the accident. In this con
nection the Pennsylvania’ Workmen’s Compensation Board said:
The workmen’s compensation act does not prescribe any standard
of health or physical condition to which the workman of the State
must conform to qualify for compensation, nor does it imply a war
ranty on the employee’s part that he is free from latent disease or
physical defect which may develop into serious injury if excited into
activity through his exertions in the course of his employment.30
In theory, therefore, wThen an employer employs a workman he
accepts him as he is, and becomes liable for injuries for which the
employee’s preexisting disease or defect was partly responsible.
Of the six classes of occupational diseases enuifterated above com
pensation has been uniformly denied for the first class, i. e., for those
diseases which have developed gradually and which are inherent in
the employment. No State, except those which compensate for all
occupational diseases, has awarded compensation for lead poisoning.
As regards the other classes of diseases, there has been a lack of uni
formity in the practices of the courts and commissions of the several
States. Numerous diverse and contradictory rulings have been made
in what appear to have been identical or similar cases. For example,
compensation for occupational neuritis has been awarded in one State
80 Smith v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.
Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Board decisions for 1916, p. 63.
IN J U R IE S
C O V E R E D .
53
and denied in another; a workman contracting anthrax has been
granted compensation in a third State and denied compensation in a
fourth; and so on.
However, while the practices among the several State commissions
and courts vary, the legal theories and principles upon which their
decisions are based have been remarkably uniform. Compensation
for occupational diseases has been usually granted if one or more or
all of the following conditions were present: (1) If the disease resulted
in violence to the physical structure of the body, i. e., if it was trau
matic or produced a lesion; (2) if the injury occurred unexpectedly
or not in the usual course of events; (3) if the injury can be traced to a
definite time and place in the employment; and (4) if the injury was
not due to a known and inherent risk of the occupation; or, even if
inherent in the occupation, if the employer had neglected to provide
reasonable safeguards which would presumably have prevented the
injury.
The guiding principle adopted by most of the courts and commis
sions in occupational disease cases is stated by the Pennsylvania
Workmen’s Compensation Board in awarding compensation for der
matitis due to the fortuitous presence of poison in hides handled by
the employee, as follows:
Where injuries received in the course of employment are of untraceable inception and gradual and insidious growth and can not be traced
to having been received at some certain time, and in which there is no
sudden or violent change in the condition of the physical structure of
the body, theymust'be regarded as the results of an occupational
disease. However, if the disease can be traced to some certain time
when there was a sudden or violent change in the condition of the
physical structure of the body, as, for instance, where poisonous gases
were inhaled which damage the physical structure of the body, it is
an accident within the workmen’s compensation act of 1915, and is
compensable.31
The following list shows the various classes of occupational diseases
for which compensation has been awarded in the several States. This
list is by no means complete nor are the States enumerated the only
ones in which the specified occupational diseases have been com
pensated.
ANTHRAX.
Anthrax contracted through chaps or cracks on the back of the
hands of a workman while handling hides (New York).
Anthrax contracted by a wool sorter through an abrasion on his
neck (Pennsylvania).
ARSENIC POISONING.
Acute arsenical poisoning from inhaling fumes from spelter furnace
(Illinois).
Roller v. Drueding Bros.
Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Board decisions for 1916, p. 86.
54
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
GAS, FUMES, AND DUSTS.
Gas poisoning resulting in cerebral hemorrhage from close proximity
to gas flame (Illinois).
Breathing of poisonous gases which had accumulated by reason of
insufficient ventilation (New York).
Miliary tuberculosis following inhalation of gas fumes due to an
explosion (Wisconsin).
Infection of throat due to inhalation of dust from dry hides by
reason of poor ventilation (Michigan).
Involuntary inhalation of gas fumes caused by explosion (Pennsyl
vania).
Inhalation of gas fumes from salamanders used to heat work place
(Minnesota).
Inhalation of poisonous fumes while heating bucket of paint in an
insufficiently ventilated room (Ohio).
SKIN DISEASES.
Dermatitis due to fortuitous presence of poison in hides handled by
workman (Pennsylvania).
Abrasion and irritation of skin from acids in handling hides in tan
nery (Wisconsin).
VIBRATIONS OR CONSTANT USE OF PARTICULAR MEMBERS.
Traumatic peripheral neuritis due to constant vibration of punch
press (Illinois).
Housemaid’s knee contracted by a plumber (Connecticut).
NONOCCUPATIONAL DISEASES*
Typhoid fever contracted from impure drinking water furnished by
employer (Wisconsin).
Erysipelas contracted from frostbitten nose (Connecticut).
Pleurisy and pulmonary tuberculosis contracted from wetting re
ceived by jumping in river in course of employment (New York).
Nephritis and disability contracted by becoming wet from flushing
hot pulp from basement of paper mill (Indiana).
Ivy poisoning of railroad employee while mowing grass on right cf
way (New York),
It is interesting to note the paradoxical position in which the courts
and compensation commissions have placed themselves. Our work
men’s compensation laws have been enacted in the vague belief that
industrial accidents are inevitable and constitute a permanent and
integral part of our industrial life. The one clinching argument con
stantly used by proponents of compensation laws has been that a large
proportion of industrial accidents are due to the inherent risk of the
industry, and consequently the employers’ liability system based upon
negligence is no Longer applicable. These same reasons, formerly
advanced for accident compensation laws, are now used by the courts
and commissions against compensation for occupational diseases, in
IN J U R IE S
C O V E R E D .
55
accordance with their interpretation of the probable legislative intent
of the statute, compensation for such diseases is denied if they are
naturally inherent in or incidental to the employment and granted
if their occurrence is sudden or accidental. In actual practice and
as a matter of simple justice, however, commissions and courts un
doubtedly feel that an employee who contracts an occupational dis
ease is just as much entitled to compensation as one who sustains the
loss of an arm. Consequently in their decisions under the law they
have no doubt been influenced by their desire to remedy so far as pos
sible the economic injustice of the statutes.
ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.
The next limitation of compensable injuries is the condition under
which they occur. No State compensates for all injuries, irrespective
of the time and place of their occurrence. In every State a com
pensable injury must happen in the course of the employment, and
in all but six States 32 it must arise out of or result from the employ
ment. A definition of this double clause has been stated by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, as follows:33
It is not easy nor necessary to the determination of the ease at bar
to give a comprehensive definition of these words which shall accu
rately include all cases embraced within the act and with precision
exclude those outside its terms, It is sufficient to say that an injury
is received “ in the course o f” the employment when it comes while
the workman is doing the duty which he is employed to perform. It
arises “ out o f” the employment when there is apparent to the
rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal
connection between the conditions under which the work is required
to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the
injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work,
and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar writh
the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the
nature of the employment, then it arises “ out o f” the employment.
But it excludes an injury which can not fairly be traced to the employ
ment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a
hazard to wThich the workman would have been equally exposed apart
from the employment. Hie causative danger must be peculiar to the
work and not common to the neighborhood; it must be incident to
the character of the business and not independent of the relation of
master and servant. It need not to have been foreseen or expected,
but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in the risk
connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source
as a rational consequence.
In other words, the injury must result from a hazard of the employ
The commissions
and courts generally have been liberal in their interpretations of this
ment, not merely one of the hazards of existence.
32 North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
33 McNichol v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Association, 215 Mass. 1497.
56
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
phrase. Granted a causal connection between injury and employ
ment and compensation is usually allowed. Awards have even been
granted in the case of a watchman who was shot by a burglar 34 and
where an employee was killed by an intoxicated fellow worker.35
Five States use merely the single phrase “ in the course of employ
ment/' thus considerably increasing the scope of injuries covered,
since such injuries need not result as a consequence of the employ
ment. For example, a workman may be injured as a result of a
prank played by a fellow employee. Such an injury does not “ arise
out of” the employment, but it does occur “ in the course o f” the
employment and would be compensated if the provision of the
law were limited simply to the latter phrase. In one of these four
States,36 however, the court has ruled that the injury must be caused
by, or incidental to, the employment. The Utah law has a still wider
scope, compensating both injuries which arise out of the employ
ment and those which occur in the course of the employment.
EXEMPTIONS DUE TO EMPLOYEE’S FAULT.
Most of the States do not grant compensation for injuries occa
sioned in whole or in part through some gross fault of the employee.
Three States,37 however, have not accepted this principle and allow
compensation regardless of the employee’s negligence. Thirty-six
States withhold compensation if the injury wa^s caused by the willful
intention of the employee to injure himself or another; 31 deny com
pensation if injury is due to intoxication; 17 if caused by willful
misconduct; and 13 if employee is guilty of violation of safety laws
or removal of safety appliances. Another limitation, though not
directly connected with either the employee’s or employer’s negligence,
is the exclusion of injuries which are intentionally inflicted by another.
Ten States have exemptions of this character. For more detailed
information see Table 11.
PENALTY FOR NEGLIGENCE.
Seven States,38 while not denying compensation entirely in certain
cases of the employee’s negligence, nevertheless penalize him by
decreasing the amount. Three States reduce the amount of com
pensation 50 per cent: California, if the injury is due to the employee’s
willful misconduct except in case the accident results in death or is
due to employer’s failure to comply with the safety provisions and in
cases of minors; Colorado, if the injury is caused by the employee’s
willful failure to use safety devices or obey reasonable rules, or is the
34 California.
36 Massachusetts.
36 Ohio.
37 Arizona, Illinois, and Montana.
88 California,Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington,and Wisconsin.
IN J U R IE S
C O V E R E D .
57
result of his intoxication; and New Mexico, if the injury is due to
the employee’s failure to use safeguards. Kentucky and Wisconsin
reduce.the amount 15 per cent if the injury is caused by the employee’s
willful failure to use safety devices or obey reasonable safety rules,
and in the case of Wisconsin, if the injury is due to the employee’s
intoxication. Nevada reduces the amount 25 per cent and Washing
ton 10 per cent, if the injury is caused by the removal of safeguards.
On the other hand, in six States 39 the employer is penalized if ho
has been guilty of negligence. In Kentucky and Wisconsin the
employer must pay 15 per cent additional compensation if the injury
is caused by his failure to obey safety laws or regulations, and in
Wisconsin the amount of compensation is trebled in case of illegal
employment of minors. New Mexico and Washington add 50 per
cent if injury is caused by violation of safety statutes; in Washing
ton 50 per cent is added in case of illegal employment of minors; in
Illinois the commission may increase the award 50 per cent in case
of intentional underpayment or unnecessary delay or appeal; while
in Massachusetts the compensation is doubled if the injury is due to
the serious or willful misconduct of the employer.
WAITING PERIOD.
As already noted, injuries in order to be compensable must, as a
rule, arise out of and in the course of the employment and must not
be occasioned by gross negligence on the part of the employee.
Another factor restricting a compensable injury is the degree of
severity of the injury or the duration of disability caused by it.
In most of the States an injury to be compensable must cause
disability for a certain length of time, no compensation being paid
during this time. This noncompensable preliminary period is known
as the “ waiting period.” In two States (Oregon and Porto Rico)
there is no such waiting time, compensation being paid for all in
juries producing any disability. The most common provision is that
disability must continue for nptore than one week, this being found
in 22 States. Utah and the Federal Government require a waiting
period of 3 days, 7 States of 10 days, and 13 of 2 weeks. Qualifica
tions of the general provisions occur in 22 States. In Hawaii there
is no waiting period in case of partial disability. In Maryland the
waiting time is reduced from 2 weeks to 1 week if the disability is
total and permanent. In the other 20 States the waiting period is
abolished entirely if the disability continues longer than certain
specified periods. In North Dakota no compensation is paid for the
first week, but if disability continues for more than 1 week compen
sation begins from date of injury; in 2 States 40 there is no waiting
39 Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington,and Wisconsin.
40 Two weeks or more, Nevada; over 2 weeks, Arizona.
58
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
period if disability continues for 2 weeks or more; in one State41 if
disability continues for 3 weeks; in 6 States42 if for 4 weeks or more;
in 2 States43 if for more than 30 days; in 6 States44 if for 6 weeks or
more; in 1 State 46 if for more than 7 weeks; and in 1 State 47 if for 8
weeks or more.
Table 12 classifies the States according to length of waiting period:
T a b le
1 3 .—COM PENSATION ST ATES, CLASSIFIED B Y L E N O T H OF W A IT IN G P ER IO D .
N o waiting
period.
(2)
Oregon.
Porto Rico.
3 days.
(2)
Utah.
United States.
1 week*
(22)
California.
Connecticut (none if disabled
over 4 weeks).
Hawaii (none if partially dis
abled).
Idaho.
Illinois,(none ifdisabled 4 weeks).
Indiana.
Kansas.
Kentucky.
Louisiana (none if disabled G
weeks).
Michigan (ncrne if disabled 6
weeks).
Minnesota.
Missouri (none if disabled over
6 weeks).
Nebraska (noae if disabled 6.
-weeks )Nevada (none if disabled 2
weeks).
l&erth Dakota (none if disabled .
©ver 1 week).
Ohio.
Oklahoma (none if disabled 3
weeks).
Texas.
Vermsont.
Washington (none if disabled
ev>er30*iays).
i
West Virginia.
Wisconsin (none if disabled, over ;
4 weeks).
10 days.
(7)
Colorado.
Maine.
Massachusetts.
New Jersey.
Pennsylvania.
-South D a k o ta
(none il disabled
6 weeks).
Wyarning (none if
disabled over '30
days).
2 weeks.
(13)
Alabama (none if
disabled 4 weeks).
Alaska (nonelf dis
abled 8 weeks).
Arizona (none if
disabled over 2
weeks).
Delaware (none if
disabled 4 weeks).
Iowa.
Maryland (1 if to
tally and perma
nently disabled).
Montana.
New Hampshire.
New Mexico.
New York (none if
disabled over 7
weeks).
R h od e Isla n d
(none if disabled
over 4 weeks:).
Tennessee (none if
disabled 6 weeks).
Virginia.
Probably no ether feature of compensation laws is considered and
debated more than the waiting period. It is maintained, especially
by organized labor, that the laws in this respect are by far inade
quate, since the large majority of industrial injuries cause disability
of less than two weeks. There is a* general tendency toward re
ducing the waiting period, 18 States48 amending their laws to this
effect during the past 2 years, and Utah reducing its period from 10
to 3 days.
& Oklahoma.
42 Four weeks or more, Alabama, Delaware, and Illinois; over 4 weeks, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin.
43 Washington, Wyoming,
44 Six weeks or more, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee; over 6 weeks,
Missouri.
4* New York.'
47 Alaska.
^CaM-ornia, Colorado, Connecticut:, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Permsylrama, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont.'
W
A IT IN G
P E R IO D .
59
The loss of even a week’s wages to the average workman would
create a hardship or at least cause inconvenience to his family. On
the other hand, several objections are advanced against the abolition
of the waiting period altogether. There is the supposed danger of
increased malingering; another objection is the undue increase in
administrative expensas. There is an irreducible minimum amount
of expense involved jn the settlement of every case, and a point
may be reached where the cost of administering a case may exceed
the compensation award. This difficulty will be obviated to some
extent, however, by the fact that in many cases the injured em
ployee will make no claim for compensation when the injury is
slight and the award is small.
COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
The theory underlying the old employers’ liability system is the
payment of damages to an employee for an injury resulting from
the employer’s fault or negligence. It is recompense for a wrong.
The new compensation system, with unimportant exceptions, abol
ishes the whole question of negligence and bases its justification
upon economic necessity. Instead of the least able unit of industry
assuming its risks, the consuming public, acting through the em
ployer, furnishes relief to injured workers by fixed awards.
The question arises, however, as to the extent to which an em
ployee should be compensated for his losses sustained as a result
of the injury. On the one hand it is maintained that the entire cost
of rehabilitation and restoration of earning capacity, including full
wages, or more if necessary, and adequate medical treatment, should
be borne by the industry; and if the employee is totally and per
manently incapacitated he should receive an adequate life pension.
On the other hand it is contended that only major injuries should
be compensated for, and then only for a small part of the wage loss.
In most of the States the compensation scale has been based, in
theory at least, upon the loss of earning power of the injured work
man, while a number of States, notably Oregon and Washington,
in providing fixed pensions have based their awards upon the work
er’s need rather than his loss of earning capacity.
No 2 of the 45 States have identical compensation provisions, and
few States seem to have followed any definite theory in this respect.
Nevertheless, two factors have operated in determining the amount
of compensation provided in various State laws: (1) Loss of earning
capacity, and (2) social need. In general it may be said that State
workmen’s compensation schedules are based upon loss of earning
power modified both by the employee’s need and by the desire to limit
the employer’s burden. Thus, the expression of compensation bene-^
60
C O M P A R IS O N
O F
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
fits in percentages of wages clearly shows that loss of wages was a
determining factor, whereas the adoption of a sliding scale of benefits
in accordance with the number of dependents shows the effect of the
social need factor. On the other hand, the desire not to burden the
employer unduly finds expression in the limitations upon the amount
of medical service, the weekly compensation payments, the periods
during which compensation is to be paid, and finally upon the per
centages of wages themselves. The necessity for a workable law,
therefore, not excessively burdensome to the employer and not con
ducive to malingering, while affording such reasonable benefits to the
injured workman as to prevent hardship to himself and family, has
led to a wide variety of attempts to determine the proper amounts
to be awarded.
Every injured employee should receive adequate compensation,
which should include unlimited medical service and full indemnity
for loss of earnings resulting from the injury. This would also fulfill
the requirements as to social needs, assuming, of course, that the
workers’ wages adequately meet their needs.
Compensation benefits may be classified according as they apply
to death, total disability, and partial disability. The provisions for
each class usually vary, and there may also be different provisions
for permanent and temporary disability. In addition to these com
pensation provisions most of the laws provide for medical, surgical,
and hospital treatment, and in most of the States for burial in case
of fatal injuries as well.
SCALE.
The compensation scale is usually based upon the earnings of the
injured employee, ranging from 50 to 66§ per cent of his weekly or
monthly wages at the time of injury or for a prescribed period pre
ceding it. In the case of minors, however, an exception is some
times made, the law recognizing the fact that the wage of a minor
would naturally increase as he grows older. Twelve States 49 make
provision upon this point.
The weekly benefits are, as a rule, also subject to a maximum and
a minimum limit. The period during which compensation is paid
varies also, the usual provision in case of death being from 5 to 8
years, and in case of disability payment during disability, with a
maximum of 300 to 500 weeks, and frequently during life in case of
permanent total disability. A further limitation may be prescribed
stipulating that the total compensation shall not exceed a certain
fixed amount. To compare accurately the compensation benefits
49 California, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
C O M P E N S A T IO N
B E N E F IT S .
61
awarded in the several States it is necessary to take into consideration
the present value of those benefits—i. e., whether the compensation
is paid outright as a lump sum or whether it is paid in periodical
installments covering a long period of time. For example, a lump
sum of $4,000 considerably exceeds the present worth of payments
of $10 a week for 400 weeks. Similarly the present value of a pay
ment of $20 a week for 100 weeks exceeds that of a payment of
$10 a week for 200 weeks. However, experience has shown that, on
the average, greater economic benefit will result from continuing
payments.
Table 13 shows the provisions of each State as to (1) percentage of
weekly wages, (2) maximum weekly payments, and (3) maximum
period and amount of compensation in case of death, permanent
total disability, and partial disability.
CENT OF W E E K L Y WAGES PAID AS COMPENSATION, MAXIMUM W E E K L Y PAYM ENTS, AN D M AXIMUM PERIOD AND AMOUNT
OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN CASE OF DEATH, PERMANENT TOTAL D ISABILITY, AND PA R TIA L D ISA B IL IT Y.
COMPARISON
Maximum period (in weeks) and amount.
State.
Per cent of weekly wages.
Weekly maximum.
Permanent total
disability.
Death.
Weeks.
Amount.
Weeks.
Partial disability.
Amount.
Weeks.
62
T a b l e 1 3 — PER
Amount.
OF
California
Colorado
Hawaii
...............................
$5,000
400
Life
6,000
4,000
5.000
3,125
Life........
Life
/$ 18 (death and partial disability)..
\$14 (total disability)........................
$18 (death)........................................
$15 (disability)..................................
•$21.60 (death)...................................
$18 (total disability)........................
$12 (partial disability)
j$12
j.312
520
>285
475
4.000
285
312..........
5.000
312........................
5,000
5; 000
150..
416........... ..........J
300........................
225........................
416........................
335........................
4,000
.312.........
5,000
3,800
4,000
Life
’
500.........
400.........
416___
416___
3,500
4; 250
400
500.,___
Life
4,200
5.000
500.........
4.000 fDuring disabil- J.
4.000
5.000
300
300.........
416.........
\500.......
300.........
300.......
300.........
400
350
520
Life
400
416.........
300.........
300_____
260.........
335.........
.
4,000
500.........
550.........
Life
T/iffi
5,000
300........................
6,000
300........................
3,500
500........................
300...................... .
400........................
150........................
Life........1 .. ................ 300........................
4,000
ST A T E S.
J-S18
$15......................................................
$12......................................................
fflO
(death and specified injuries)..
Massachusetts....................... 66f................................................
t$ib (otners).......................................
Michigan................................ 60.................................................. $14......................................................
Minnesota.............................. 30to66§ (death)........................ l$15
.
. .
66| (disability)...........................
..........................................
Missouri................................. 66|................................................ $15
Montana................................ 30 to 50 (death)..........................
50 (disability).............................
Nebraska............................... 66§................................................ $15......................................................
.
$4,800
4,000
During disabil
ity. '
240........................ 3 years’ earnings.
$2,600
During disabil
ity.
UNITED
$12 to $15
..............................
$13.20
.........................................
$15.......
..............................
$15 (disability) ..
.....................
$12................ . ..................................
. .
300
OF
15 to 60 (death)..........................
50 (disability).............................
25 to 60 (death)..........................
60 (total disability)...................
50 (partial disability)................
20 to 55 (death)..........................
55 (disability).............................
50 to 65.........................................
55..................................................
60..................................................
60..................................................
Illinois....................................
Indiana..................................
Iowa.......................................
Kansas..................................
Kentucky..............................
Louisiana............................... 25 to 55 (death)..........................
55 (disability).............................
Maine...................................... 60..................................................
Maryland............................... 50..................................................
550
6,000
4.000
LAWS
Idaho......................................
$5,000
65.................................................. $20.83................................................. 240
50.................................................. $10......... ............................................ 312
Connecticut...........................
Delaware...............................
300
COMPENSATION
Alabama................................ 25 to 60 (death).......................... j$12 to $15
50 to 60 (disability)...................
50 (temporary total)................. No provision.....................................
50.................................................. No provision...................................
Nevada.
New Hampshire.
New Jersey..........
New Mexico. . .
New York........
North Dakota..
O hio................
Porto Rico.......
Rhod© Island..
South Dakota..
Tennessee.„___
Te^as-----
Utah.......
Vermont.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin........
Wyoming.........
United
300.,....................:
300.......................
(During disabil- )
3,500
I ity.
jDuring disabil- } ............................
}?2a..........................
j
r
flQ— .............
Monthly pension (temporary $60 (temporary total—monthly
total.)
pension).
Fixed amounts (others)...........
10 to 6 6 | ( d e a th )...;................ •115.38..................................................
66§ (disability}--......................
3,000
fDunng disabil- }
\ ity.
300.......................
104.......................
5.000
•4,000
5.000
3.000
5.000
300.......................
2 , 500
300.......................
312.......................
300.......................
300.......................
312.......................
4.000
5.000
3,750
260.......................
300.......................
5,000
4.000
2.000
340.......................
During disabil
ity.
5,500
Death or remarriage. L ife ___
4.500
1.500
B E N E F IT S ,
Virginia............
Washington....
433.......................
COMPENSATION
Oklahoma____
Oregon1...........
Pennsylvania..
15 to66§ (death)......................
1$18.46 (death).................................. jDeatJi or remarriage. Life
60 (total disability)........ - —
p .0 3 to $16.62 (disability).............
50 (permanent partial)...........
3,000 300.........
300...
50............................................... $10....................................... .............
35 to 60 (death)........................
400.........
300...
} f l 2 ....... .........................................................
66§ (disability).........................
15 to 60 (death)........................ $18 (death)....................................... [300...
620.........
$12 (disability),....!.....................
50 (disability)...................—
15 to66§ ((J e ^ th )..:.............. 115.38 (death).................... ............. [Death or remarriage. Life
$15 to 120 (disability)............ : . . . .
6(J§ (disability)............ . . . —
20 to 66§ ( d e a t h ) ...........
Death or remarriage. Life
66§ (disability).;......., ............
($15 (death and temporary total) - [416.........
5,000 Life., . . .
66|.............................................. V
S12 (others)......................................
Not covered............... 500........,
50................................................ $18.....................................................
Death or remarriage Life___ *
Monthly pension..................... $45 2 (monthly pension).................
15 to 60 (death)........................
5 0 0 ......
300...
6Q (disability)........................... $12....................................... .............
4.000
50 (temporary total)................ $7 (temporary total).......................
f$14 (total disability).......................
500.........
50................................................ 810 (others)...................................... >300.
378.,
3.000 Life
112 (disability)— . . . . — : .........
55................................................
20 to 50 (death). . ^...................
550.........
$ 11 .................. ................................
50 (disability).*,.....................
60....................... . ...................... |15...................................
300.........
401.........
60................................................ $16...................................
5.000 Life
312.........
15 to 45 (death)___ : ............... 112.50 (total disability).
3,500 260.........
50 (disability)......... 1............... . $10 (partial disability)..
300.........
4.000 500.........
50.................................................
Death or remarriage. Life
Monthly pension..................... . $5Q (mpnthly pension).
Monthly pension (death)....... . \$12 (disability)........... .
Death
or
remarriage.
Life
50 (disability)___ '..............
$14-63..............................
6 5 . . , . . ...................................
4,500 780.........
/During disabil- I .................. .
\ ity.
J
1 Oregon by a 1923 amendment increased ail compensation benefits 30 per cent, effective Dec. 1,1919.
2Increased to 60 per cent qi wages for first 6 months in case of temporary total disability.
OS
05
61
*
C O M P A R IS O N
o r
C O M P E N S A T IO N
L A W S
O F
U N IT E D
S T A T E S .
PER CENT OF WAGES.
In all but three States (Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming) the
amount of compensation is based upon wages. A number of States,
however, provide fixed lump sums for certain injuries, but apply the
percentage system to all others. In most of the States the prescribed
percentage remains uniform for all injuries. A few States have
varying percentages for different types of injuries, and in several
States the percentage varies with conjugal condition and number of
children.
#
It will be noted that in 18 States 50 the amount of compensation is
50 per cent of the employee’s wages; in 4 States,51 55 per cent; in 9
States,52 60 per cent; in 3 States,53 65 per cent; and in 8 States54 and
the Federal Government, 66§ per cent. In the remaining three
States, as already noted, different methods are provided. Oregon
and Washington provide for monthly pensions in case of death or
injury, while in Wyoming fixed absolute amounts are prescribed.
WEEKLY MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM.
The compensation benefits based upon percentage of wages are
usually modified by weekly maximum and minimum limits which
may materially affect the amounts, though to what extent depends,
of course, upon the wage level. Under the present high wage level
it is doubtful if in any State the compensation benefits equal 50 per
cent of the employees’ wages, while in some States and particularly
in the higher paid occupations the ratio of compensation to wage loss
does not exceed 25 to 30 per cent. Two States (Alaska and Arizona)
have no maximum or minimum provisions; 4 States55 have a weekly
maximum of $10 or under; l 56 has a maximum of $11; l l 57 have a
maximum of $12; 7 58 of over $12 and under $15; 8 59of $15; 7 States60
and the Federal Government have a maximum of over $15 to $18;
2 States 61 have a maximum of $20 or over; while 3 States 62 provide
monthly pensions or fixed amounts.
50 Alabama (increased to 60 per cent in certain cases), Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois (increased to 65 per cent in certain cases), Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, and South Dakota.
*
52 Hawaii (total disability only; partial, £0 per cent; death, 25 to 60 per cent), Iowa, Kansas (specified
injuries, 50 per cent), Maine, Michigan, Nevada (total disability only; partial, 50 per cent; death, 15 to 66§
per cent), Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.
^California, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.
54 Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey (death, 35 to 60 per cent), New York, North
Dakota, and Ohio.
55 Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia, $10; Porto Rico, $7.
56 Tennessee.
57 Alabama (increased to $15 in certain cases), Idaho, Illinois (increased to $15 in certain cases), Kentucky,
Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio (death and temporary total disability, $15), Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, and West Virginia.
58 Montana and Vermont, $12.50; Indiana, $13.20; Connecticut, death and partial disability, $18, total
disability, $14; Michigan, $14; Rhode Island, total disability, $14, other disabilities, $10; Wisconsin, $14.63.
69 Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas.
60 Utah, $16; Hawaii, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, $18; Massachusetts, death and specified injuries, $10,
other disabilities, $16; Nevada, $9.23 to $16.62; New York, $15 to $20; Federal Government, $15.38,
f California, $20.83; North Dakota, $20.
e2 Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
CO M P E N SA TIO N B E N E F IT S.
65
DEATH.
The benefits for death in most cases approximate three or f o ^
years' earnings of the deceased employee. The methods provided for
determining compensation for death vary somewhat. Two States 63
provide for fixed absolute amounts without reference to wages or length
of time, and one State64proportions the amount of compensation to the
earning capacity and number and needs of dependents of deceased. Six
States65 provide for amounts equal to annual earnings for three or four
years. The large majority of States, however, apply a wage percent
age for specified periods. Of these, 2 States 66 pay death benefits for
less than 300 weeks; 13 67for 300 weeks; 7 68for over 300 but under 400
weeks; 7 69for 400 to 500 weeks; while 6 States70 and the Federal Gov
ernment provide benefits until the death or remarriage of the widow.
Twenty-two States also place a limit upon the maximum amount pay
able in any one case. These maximum amounts range from $3,000 in
New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Wyoming to $6,000 in Alaska.
The Oklahoma law does not cover fatal accidents.
While most of the States provide for a uniform rate in death cases,
in 20 States71 the compensation varies with conjugal conditions and
number of children, the percentage ranging from 10 to 66f. The
provisions as to children who are beneficiaries usually make the
benefits payable in their behalf cease on their reaching the age of
16 or 18 years, but many of these state that the benefits shall not
cease if, at the age named, the recipient is mentally or physically
incapacitated for earning a living. In West Virginia benefits are
paid to children until 15 years of age and in Missouri until 17 years.
Eighteen States 72 pay benefits up to 16 years while 20 States 73 pay
up to 18 years. Five States 74 have no provision as to age of children.
Table 14, compiled by Mr. F. W. Hinsdale, secretary of the Work
men’s Compensation Board of British Columbia, shows the expec63 Alaska and Wyoming.
64 Porto Rico.
65 California, Kansas, New Hampshire, 3 years; Illinois, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, 4 years.
66 Vermont, 260 weeks; Delaware, 285 weeks.
67 Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
68 Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Utah, 312 weeks; Kentucky, 335 weeks; Nebraska, 350 weeks;
Texas, 360 weeks.
69 Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Tennessee, 400 weeks; Maryland and Ohio, 416 weeks; Massachusetts,
00 weeks.
70 Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia.
71 Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania^ Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Vir
ginia, and Wyoming.
72 Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mon
tana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.
73 Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah [(hoys 16), Vermont,
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
74 New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, South Dakota, and Texas.
1 7 2 3 0 8 ° — 2 0 — B u l l . 2 7 5 --------- 5
66
CO M PARISON OF C O M P E N SA TIO N L A W S OF U N IT E D STATES.
tancies of children as to attaining the^age of 16 years, and the present
value, at 5 per cent compound interest, of monthly pensions of $5,
payable until death or age 16.
1 4 .—EXPECTANCIES OF CH ILDREN AS TO AT TA IN IN G THE AGE OF 16 YEAR'S
AND PR ESEN T V A L U E , AT 5 PER CENT COMPOUND IN TEREST? OF M O N TH LY P E N
SIO N OF #5, P A Y A B L E TTNTIL M E A T H OR AGE .16.
T a b le
Age.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
Present
Expect
value of $5 Difference.
ancy years. per
month.
12.85
13.48
12.97
12.26
11.45
10.60
9.70
•8.79
7. 85
-6.89
5.92
4.95
3.97
:2.98
1.99
.99
'$572.48
•592.-27
576.39
1553.25
525. 95
496.17
463.29
428/56
391. 02
350.84
308.30
263.70
216.43
166.32
113. 73
57/96
$19.79
15, 88
23.14
27.30
:29.78
32. 88
34.73
37.54
40.18
42.54
M/m
47.27
S0..11
52. 59
-:55.'77
Onetwelfth of
difference.
SI. 65
1.32
1.93
2.275
2.48
2.74
2.89
3.13
3.35
3.545
3.7*2
3.94
'4.18
4.38
4.-65
REMABBIAGrE O F T O O W S .
The statutoTy provisions relating to remarriage of widows vary
considerably among the several States. In 19 States75 &nd the Fed
eral Government compensation benefits of the widow terminate upon
her remarriage, but the unpaid balance due her is paid to the children
or other dependents. In 9 States 70 the widow upon remarriage re
ceives only a portion of the compensation benefits to which she would
‘otherwise be entitled, but this amount is paid to her in a lump sum at
the time of remarriage. Of these 9 States, Colorado and Minnesota
provide a lump sum equal to one-half of the compensation remaining
unpaid, in case there are no dependent children; Pennsylvania pays
the widow the present value of the compensation for one-third the re
maining period but for not over 100 weeks; Nevada and New York
provide a lump sum equal to 2 years’ compensation, and North Da
kota a lump sum equal to 3 years’ compensation; Oregon pays the
widow a flat sum. of -$300 and Washington "$240; while in West Vir
ginia if the widow" remarries within two years from the death of her
husband she receives 20 per cent of the compensation benefits due
'for the period between the date of remarriage and the end of 10 years
from the death of her husband. Fifteen States 77 have no special
provisions relative to remarriage oi widows and presumably in these
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii/Idaho, Indiana,Iowa (if no children), Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland'(if *no children), Montana, -New Jersey, New Mexico, >South ^Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont,sand Virginia.
76 Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Kocth .Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and
West Virginia.
w Alaska, Arizona, California, -Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, -Missouri, Now Hampshire,
Ohio, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
67
CO M PEN SATIO N B E N E F IT S.
States the full .statutory amounts are paid. In Jfefomska the com
pensation rights of a widow without children are not affected upon
remarriage, but in case she has children the unpaid benefits go to
them. The Oklahoma law does not cover fatal accidents.
The probability of death or remarriage of widows is an essential
factor in determining the cost of compensation and in setting up
adequate reserves. The probability of death, however, increases,
while the probability of remarriage decreases, with the passing years.
This necessitates the computation of a table combining the two ex
pectancies, i. e., of death and of remarriage, in order to arrive at any
intelligent handling of the situation.78 As a matter of reference for
those interested a combined expectancy table (Table 15), also compiled
by Mr. F. W. Hinsdale^ secretary of the Workmen’s Compensation
Board of British Columbia, is reproduced herewith.
1 5 __ EXPECTANCIES OF W ID O W S A T AGE OF W ID O W H O O D TO D E A T H OPv R E
M ARRIAGE (LIFE E X P E C T A N C Y O N L Y A F T E R AG E 55), AND PRESENT V A L U E , AT
15 PER CENT COMPOUND IN T E R E ST , O F PENSION OF $29 PER M ONTH, PAY A BL E
U N T IL D E A T H OR REM ARRIAGE.®
T a b le
Ago when -widowed.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
20
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57.
68.
59.
60.
Present
Expect
value oi 820
ancy to
per month ;
death or
Temarriage during ex
(years).
pectancy.
13, 44 •
14.14
14.88
15. 65
16. 45
17. '28
18.16
19. 01
19. S3
20. 64
21.41
22.12
22.-80
23.41
-23.96
24.44
24.82
25.10
25.28
25. 33
25.32
25. 23
25.06
24. 81
24. 47
24.08
23.62
.23.13
22.60
22.03
21. 42
20.77
20.11
10.44
18.76
1Su07
17.41
16.78
16.13
15.52
14.90
$2,£64.10
2,450. 20
2,537.71.
2,625.11
2,712.80
2,800. 40
2, 889. 53 ’
2,972.18
3,948.1-6
3,120. 39
3, 186. 62
3,245. 81
3,300. 24
3,347. 50
3,389.43
3,424. -42 .
^,452.61
3,471.99
3., 484. 44
3,487.90
’3, 487. 20
3,480. 98
3,469.23
3,451. 28
3,426. 60
3,398. 29
3,363.51
3,326.16
3,284. 23
3,238.61
3,187. 46
3,131.86
3,073. 62
3 ,« 2 .0 2
2,947.90
2,880. 77
2,813.69
2,74&20
2,678,48
2,610.47
2,540.07
Age when widowed.
Expect
Present
ancy to
value of $20
d e a th s per month
Temarriage during ex
(years).
pectancy.
*61.......................................
62................................... .
*63...........................................
64..........................................
m ................................... .....
67..........................................
68..........................................
69........................................ ;
70..........................................
7 1 ..........................................
72..........................................
’73........... ..............................
74..........................................
76........... ..............................
77..........................................
78..........................................
79...........................................
81
8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
S3............................... _ ........
84..........................................
85..........................................
'86........................ .................
8.7_______________ _______
i
89.......................................... !
90.......................................... :
91.......................................... !
92........................................... !
93.......................................... i
94..........................................
95..........................................
96..........................................
97..........................................
98..................................... .
m ................................... .......
100.........................................
14.3D
13.71
13.12^
12.54
11.96
11.40
10. 84
10. 31
9.79
9.30
'8.83 "
8.39
7.96
7.55
7.15
6.77
6. SO
6.05
5.73
5.43
5.14
4.88
4.63
4.39
4.16
3.93
3.71
3.51
3.31
s. 13
2.96
2.80
2.65
2.a
2.36
2.21
2.06
1,91
1.74
1.58
$2,469.12
2,397. 63
2,324.36
2,249.49
2,173. 60
2,096.94
2,019.18
1,943.00
1,806.74
1,792.78
1,720.56
1,650.83
1,382.36
1,514.14
1,447.. -58
1,382. 43
1,317.78
1,256.63
1,143.32
1.-090. 11
1,041.31
m . 16
946.93
902. 62
«57. 64
813.14
772.09
732. 23
83
. 03
627. 05
S95. 20
565. 46
533. 61
'501.75
469. 89
437.OS
399.17
•363. 19
1
« Lite expectancies after age 55 are as shown in table for widows prepared "by registrar-general ■of births,
deaths, and marriages in England and Wales, supplement to 75th annual report.
?3®ara ferther ^iseussim M ‘ -.campsriaation periods .oiwidDws and children ” .see MontMy Lafe&r Review
for J&Qvemb^r, .1910, pp. 335--33S.
'6 8
CO M PARISO N OF C O M P E N SA T IO N L A W S OF U N IT E D STATES.
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN CASE OF DEATH.
In addition to the foregoing compensation benefits most of the
States provide also for burial expenses, the maximum allowances
ranging from $50 to $200. Thirty States 79 and the Federal Govern
ment 80 provide for such expenses in case the deceased leaves depend
ents, while 15 do not.81 All the States except two 82 make similar
provision in case of no dependents. In the latter event the entire
liability of the employer is limited to such burial expenses in every
State except eight.83 In California $350 additional must be paid into
the industrial rehabilitation fund; in Idaho $1,000' additional must
be paid into the administration fund; in Kentucky $100 additional
must be paid to the personal representative of the employee; in
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York $100 additional is required
toward the creation of a special fund, from which are to be paid
benefits to employees who sustain second injuries; in New Jersey $400
additional must be paid into the State treasury toward defraying the
administrative expenses of the bureau; and in Utah $750 additional
must be paid into the State treasury if the employer is not insured
in the fund, from which second injuries shall be compensated. The
original Connecticut act provided for the payment of $750 into the
State treasury in case the deceased employee left no dependents, but
this provision of the law was never enforced because of doubt of its
constitutionality, and was subsequently repealed.
PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY.
Most States recognize the fact that a permanently disabled work
man is a greater economic loss to his family than if he were killed
outright at the time of the accident, and, consequently, provide greater
benefits than in case of fatal accidents. Eighteen States 84 and the
Federal Government provide that for permanent total disability com
pensation payments shall continue for the full period of the injured
workman’s life. Three States 85 pay benefits for 312 weeks or less;
7 States 86 for 400 but under 500 weeks; 13 States 87 for 500 to 550
'9 $50—Wyoming; $75—Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, and New Mexico; $100—Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin; $125—
Nevada; $150—Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia.
eo $100.
81 Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maine. Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hamp
shire, Oklahoma (does not compensate fatal accidents), Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and
Texas.
82 Porto Rico and Oklahoma, whose law does not cover fatal accidents.
83 California, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Utah.
84 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and West. Virginia.
85 Vermont, 260 weeks; New Hampshire, 300 weeks; Hawaii, 312 weeks.
86 Iowa* Louisiana, and New Jersey, 400 weeks; Texas, 401 weeks; Kansas and Kentucky, 416 weeks;
Delaware, 475 weeks.
87 Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia,
600 weeks; Connecticut and New Mexico, 520 weeks; Alabama, Minnesota, and Tennessee, 550 weeks.
69
COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
weeks; and one State 88 for 9 to 15 years. Alaska and Wyoming
provide fixed absolute amounts, while Porto Rico proportions the
amount of compensation to the wage and age of the injured workman.
Nineteen States also place a limit upon the maximum amount payable
in any one case. These maximum amounts range from $3,000 in
South Dakota to $6,000 in Alaska and Michigan.
PARTIAL DISABILITY.
*•
The working out of a satisfactory basis of compensation benefits
for injuries causing partial disability has been most difficult. Com
pensation for temporary total disability alone is inadequate, espe
cially in view of the fact that while the employee may be able to
return to work of some sort within a few weeks he is handicapped for
life by reason of some maiming or other injury which interferes with
his ability as a workman. To provide for such contingencies two
methods have generally been adopted. One method, found in prac
tically all of the States is the payment of an award based on the
percentage of wage loss occasioned by such disability, payments
continuing during incapacity but subject to maximum limits. The
second method is the adoption of a specific schedule of injuries for
which benefits are awarded for fixed periods, the payments being
based upon a percentage of wages earned at the time of the injury.
Usually both methods of payment are provided for. The practice in
most States is to pay a percentage of the wage for fixed periods for
certain enumerated injuries and for all other injuries a percentage of
the wage loss during disability. The number of injuries specified in
the schedule varies in the dilferent States, but provision is generally
made for loss of arm, hand, leg, foot, eye, fingers, and toes, and parts
thereof. All but five States 89 provide by law for such schedules of
specific injuries, and in two of these excepted States 90 the adminis
trative commission has worked out a schedule for partial disability.
The advantages of the schedule-of-specific-injuries method of com
pensating partial disabilities are its simplicity and definiteness. For
example, compensation for loss of a hand is ordinarily fixed at 50
per cent of the employee’s wages for 150 weeks. The question arises,
however, should such an employee also receive compensation for
temporary total disability during the healing period ? Some of the laws
are silent upon the subject, but most of the States, either by law or
administrative rulings, have made provision therefor. In 26 States 91
compensation amounts provided in the partial disability schedules
ss Wisconsin.
89 A r iz o n a , C a lifo r n ia , N e w H a m p s h ir e , N o r t h D a k o t a , a n d P o r t o R i c o .
90 C a lifo r n ia a n d N o r t h D a k o t a .
91 A l a b a m a ,
A la s k a ,
C a lifo r n ia ,
C o lo r a d o ,
D e la w a r e ,
H a w a ii,
I n d ia n a ,
Iow a,
K ansas,
K en tu ck y,
L o u is ia n a , M a r y la n d , M ic h ig a n , M in n e s o t a , M o n t a n a , N e b r a s k a , N e w M e x i c o , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a ,
O k la h o m a , P e n n s y lv a n ia , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , V ir g in ia , W e s t V ir g in ia , a n d W is c o n s in .
J®
COMPARISON OF .COMPENSATION LAW S *OF UNITED STATES.
are ki lieu of all other benefits except medical service; in 13 States 92
compensation is paid for temporary total disability during the healing
period in. addition to the schedule amounts; in Massachusetts and
lihode Island compensation is paid for total disability during the
healing period and for partial disability thereafter, in addition to the
schedule amounts; while the Maine law provides for continuing par
tial disability payments in addition to those provided in the schedule,
but for not over 300 weeks in all.
The question is earnestly discussed as to whether the “ percentage”
or “ schedule” method is the fairer method of compensation. The
advocates of the percentage basis contend that the wage loss may
develop with passing years and that the subject of the amount of
compensation should be open to revision in accordance with the
changing conditions; while on the other side it is claimed that
there is an apparent fixed proportionate loss for which an equitable
award can be made, and which should be made in every case at the
time of the injury. This has the advantage at least of securing com
pensation to the workman on the basis of an actually proved injury
without leaving the matter open to remote contingencies and the
possibility of the disability arising at a time when there would be no
fund available from which it could be compensated, or when h y
removal or other change of conditions it would be impossible to take
aaiy steps in the way of proof and the securing of the contemplated
compensationDISFIGURE MENT.
Frequently injuries cause disfigurement which may not affect the
injured employee’s earning capacity, but may decrease his oppor
tunities to obtain employment. Should compensation be awarded
for such injuries ? Twenty-one States a make specific statutory
provisions for such contingencies. Most of these States limit com
pensation to disfigurement of the head or face, while some specify
that the injury must result in diminished ability to obtain employ
ment. In addition to these States the courts in three others 93 have
ruled upon the matter. Michigan and Minnesota have granted
compensation for the loss of an ear, and the Iowa court has held
that it might allow compensation if the injury affected the oppor
tunity to secure employment.
32
C e n m e c tro u t, I d a h o , I ll in o i s , M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , N e w
J e r s e y , O h a o,
O r e g o n , S a u t ii .D a k o ta , C fta k ,
V e r m o n t, W a s h in g to n , a n d W y o m in g .
a A la s k a ,
C a lifo r n ia ,
C o lo r a d o ,
H a w a i i,
Id a h o ,
I ll in o i s ,
I n d ia n a ,
K en tu ck y,
L o u is ia n a ,
M is s o u r i,
N e b r a s k a , N e v a d a , N e w M e x ic o , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a , O k la h o m a , S o u t h D a k o t a , T e x a s , U t a h ,
V e r m o n t , a n d W is c o n s in .
93 I o w a , M ic h ig a n , a n d M in n e s o t a .
COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
71
SECOND INJURIES.
One consequence of workmen’s compensation laws, possibly unfore
seen at the time of their enactment, is the adverse effect o f such laws
upon the employment of physically defective workers. When a oneeyed workman loses the second eye in an industrial accident, he is
totally disabled for life. If the employer is required, under the law,
to pay compensation for permanent total disability in such cases, he
will feel considerable apprehension about employing such men. On
the other hand, if the employee is to receive compensation for the
loss of one eye only, regardless of the resulting disability and loss of
earning capacity, he will be inadequately compensated and the pur
pose of the compensation act will be partially defeated.
Industrial discrimination against crippled workers presents a serious
and complex problem, which has been accentuated by the return of
disabled soldiers. Many factors contribute to this discrimination,
one of which is the fear that the employment of crippled workers will
greatly increase the cost of accident compensation. A few of the
States have enacted remedial legislation on the subject, but most of
the States have thus far done nothing to meet this problem. The
statutory provisions relative to second injuries, as interpreted by the
courts and commissions in the 45 States having workmen’s compensa
tion laws at the present time, are as follows:
In 14 States94 compensation is granted only for the disability
caused by that particular injury, without reference to previous
injuries. In these States the factor of increased compensation costs
as a contributory cause of discrimination has of course been elim
inated, but, on the other hand, the employee receives grossly inade
quate compensation. In this connection the experience of the
Montana Industrial Accident Board is illuminating. The Montana
law makes no specific provision covering second injuries. The board,
however, held that an employer should not be penalized for his
generosity in hiring a crippled workman. One of the principal em
ployers of the State, having a hundred or more crippled workers on
his pay roll, requested a ruling as to the extent of his liability in case
of a subsequent accident to any%of these crippled men, stating that
if he was to be liable for the total disability he would immediately
discharge them. The board promptly ruled that the employer would
be liable only for the subsequent injury without reference to the
resulting disability. It is stated that as a result of this ruling over
400 cripples in the State retained their positions as watchmen, door
keepers, etc., whereas if the board had held the employer liable for
the entire disability these crippled men would all have been dis
94
A l a b a m a ( e x c e p t lo s s o f e y e , a r m , o r l 3g ), C a lifo r n ia , C o lo r a d o , D e la w a r e , I n d i a n a , M ic h ig a n , M o n t a n a ,
N e b r a s k a , N e w J e r s e y , O k l a h o m a , P e n n s y lv a n ia , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , a n d V i r g in i a ,
72
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OP UNITED STATES.
charged and would of necessity in the majority of instances have
become a charge upon society. The board does not defend its inter
pretation of the law but pleads necessity and expediency and its
desire to protect the cripple. Similar to Montana’s experience has
been that of California. The California act at one time provided for
full compensation, or life pension, in case of a worker who loses the
sight of his second eye. The commission took into consideration the
social need and unfortunate condition of such a man and deemed
it wise to give him a life pension. However, the act was amended at
the request of the disabled men themselves, who stated that they
found it difficult to obtain employment.
In 15 States 95 compensation is granted for the entire disability
caused by the combined injuries. In case of the loss of a second eye,
therefore, compensation would be awarded for permanent total dis
ability. This places a heavy burden upon the employer, who under
the circumstances feels himself justified in refusing to employ crippled
men. New York early met the problem by relieving the employer
of the extra liability. An amendment to the New York law, enacted
in 1916, provides that in case of a second major disability the em
ployer shall be held liable only for the second injury, but the injured
employee shall be compensated for the disability resulting from the
combined injuries. The additional compensation is paid out of a
special fund. This fund is created by requiring the employer to con
tribute $100 for each fatal accident in which there are no persons
entitled to compensation. The States of Massachusetts, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin have recently
followed the example set by New York, and enacted similar provi
sions. Wisconsin, however, raises the special fund by requiring
employers to pay an additional $150 in case an employee sustains a
major permanent disability. These plans of taking care of the extra
compensation liability through a special fund insure substantial
justice to both employer and employee and remove one potent factor
of discrimination.
In six States 96 compensation for second injuries is determined by
subtracting the disability caused by the prior injury from the whole
disability caused by the subsequent injury. The Virginia law also
has this provision, which is limited, however, to cases in which both
injuries occur within the same employment; while in Alabama, in
case of the loss of a second eye, leg, or arm, the amount of compen
sation shall be three-fourths of the difference between the award for
permanent total disability and the award for the second injury. In
other cases the employer is liable only for the disability caused by
the second injury.
ss I d a h o , I ll in o i s , M a in e , M a r y l a n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M in n e s o t a , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a , O h io , O r e g o n ,
R h o d e I s la n d , U t a h , W a s h i n g t o n , W e s t V ir g in i a , a n d W is c o n s in .
K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , S o u t h D a k o t a , a n d W y o m i n g .
COMPENSATION BENEFITS*
73
Ten States 97 make no specific provision regarding second injuries.
It is probable that in some of these States the administrative com
missions or courts have ruled upon the question in cases coming be
fore them for adjudication, but no report of any of these rulings has
come to the attention of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Three States 98 grant a greater award for the loss of a second mem
ber than for the loss of a first. The objection to this plan is that it
does not solve the problem of discrimination. On the contrary, in
creased compensation benefits for second injuries increase the prob
ability of discrimination against crippled men.
Connecticut attempted to meet this problem of discrimination by
permitting physically defective employees to enter into an employ
ment contract whereby they might waive their right to compensation
for injuries due directly to their physical defect. Kansas and Ohio
also recognize this waiver principle, but only in case of blind em
ployees. Undoubtedly under this scheme many defective workmen
are given employment which would be denied them if the employer
were to assume the liability resulting from a second injury. Such a
plan, however, leaves the handicapped workman unprotected in case
of a subsequent accident. As far as he is concerned, the compen
sation law is to a great extent a dead letter, and in case of injury \le
wTill be thrown upon public charity or the generosity of his employer.
Some scheme should be adopted which would relieve the employer
of the extrahazardous risk involved and at the same time compensate
the crippled workman in proportion to his loss of earning capacity.
The special-fund plan already in operation in the eight States specified
answers this dual purpose.
Another method aiming at the prevention of industrial discrimina
tion against cripples is to prohibit insurance companies from charging
employers higher premiums in case they employ disabled men. Min
nesota recently enacted a law embodying such a provision. The
weakness of this scheme is that it does not cover self-insured employ
ers, who, because of the direct relationship between accidents and
compensation costs, would be more inclined to practice discrimination
than insured employers.
It might be added that the total number of second injuries in pro
portion to the total number of all injuries would be infinitesimally
small. A computation recently made by the United States Bureau
of Labor Statistics shows that of all the employees under the com
pensation act in the State of Wisconsin who had lost a hand, an arm,
a foot, a leg, or an eye, only one would sustain a second major per
manent disability in any given year. Application of the Wisconsin
M A la s k a , A r iz o n a , C o n n e c t ic u t , H a w a i i, I o w a , L o u is ia n a , N e w H a m p s h ir e , N e w M e x i c o , P o r t o R i c o ,
a n d V erm on t,
s* C o lo r a d o , I o w a , a n d W i s c o n s in .
74
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
rate to the 45 State compensation laws would give a grand total of 38
second major permanent disabilities for all industries covered b y the
compensation acts of these States. The increased cost of second
injuries would therefore be negligible. Assuming that all second
major permanent disabilities would result in permanent total dis
ability, the increased compensation cost of such accidents would
probably in the aggregate not exceed three-tenths of 1 per cent of the
total compensation costs for all accidents under the compensation act.
It must be acknowledged, however, that an individual employer
is not particularly concerned with the fact that “ in the aggregateM
the increased cost of second disabilities is insignificant. When a
crippled workman in his employ sustains a second major disability the
increased cost to him is much greater than the cost of a similar dis
ability to a normal worker would be, and this notwithstanding the
fact that the increased aggregate cost is negligible. But even acknowl
edging that for an individual employer the occurrence of a second
injury would materially increase his compensation costs, the fact
that there is little possibility of such an accident occurring at all, as
already pointed out, would seem to prove that the widespread dis
crimination against the employment of crippled men is hardly
justified.
BEHABILIT ATIGN.
Until recently the welfare of workers permanently injured in
industry has been criminally neglected. Disabled workers have been
paid their compensation benefits, and then allowed to shift for them
selves exactly as they would have done prior to the enactment of com
pensation laws. Fortunately the war focused attention upon the
problem. In the attempt to restore the war cripple the plight of the
industrial cripple was also brought into relief. Massachusetts, in
1918, was the first State to provide for a rehabilitation department;
since then, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have followed suit.
It is to be hoped that every disabled workman will not only be paid
the statutory compensation benefits but also be functionally restored
as far as possible, retrained, and replaced in desirable employment.
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
As already noted, the partial disability schedules adopted in the
various States include generally the same items, and it is possible
to tabulate many of them so as to afford a comparison of the
awards allowed by different States for specified injuries. In 38
States the schedules for permanent partial disabilities, either by law
or administrative decree, are stated in terms of weeks or months. In
order to make the latter cases comparable with the majority, the num
ber of months indicated has been multiplied by 4 J to reduce them to
weeks, the nearest whole number of weeks being used.
75
CO M PARISO N OF P A R TIA L D ISA B IL ITY SCH ED U LES.
Table 16 shows the number of weeks for which compensation is
payable for specified injuries in the several States. In this table has
been included the schedule of severity rating formulated by the com
mittee on statistics of the International Association of Industrial
Accident Boards and Commissions.89 The purpose of this schedule,
however, was to obtain a more accurate measure of industrial hazards,
the schedule not being intended as a basis for compensation awards.
T
1 6 .— N U M B E R O F W E E K S F O R W H IC H C O M P E N S A T IO N IS P A Y A B L E F O R S P E C I
able
F IE D
IN J U R IE S IN T H E
SEVE RAL STATES.
L o s s o f—
Per
ma
S ta te .
C o m m itt o e .* ....
A la * ..,..
C o l o .2.........
■Goan .3____
D e l . * ..........
H a w a i i 2. .
I d a h o 8. . .
I fl*
I n d .2..........
........
tawst2 __
K a n s .2____
nent
tota l
d is
a b i l
ity .
1,000
550
L ife .
520
475
312
L ife
L ife
500
400
416
Ky.a.......
........
416
Jua .-2
400
M a in e 4 .. .
500
M d .2............ £ L ife
M a s s .s -----§00
__
M a jor—
A rm
In
.(a t
dex
H and. T hum b.
s h o u l
fin
g e r.
d e r ).
?5©
m
5 00
208
150
104
208
156
312
194
2M
200
200
150
150
125
200
150
250
225
2K)
200
.
J90
150
280
50
M i e h .2
M i n n ,2____
M e?
M o n t .2____
500
200
550
L ife
L ife
200
N e v .3.........
N . J.3.........
N . M exA .
N . Y .s .. ..
N . D a k s ..
L ife
400
520
L ife
L ife
O h i o 3 ____
O k la - 2 . . . .
O r e g .3____
P a ;s
R . I .e .. . . .
L ife
500
L ife
500
500
.......
__ Life
__
S . D a k .3 .. i L ife
T ftnn.a
550
T e x .2 .........
401
U t a h 3 . . . Life
V t .3 ............
269
__
.......
V a ;2
W . V a . 2. .
W is .2 _____
500
L ife
*780
S ig h t H e a r H earO th
L eg
CJreat
in g ,
of
F oot.
er
M id
L i t (a t
on e
one
toe.
R
in
g
to e .
tle k ip ) .’
d le
fi n
eye.
e a r.
fi n fin
g e r.
der.
220
200
225
260
200
150
312
312
0
aoo ISO
500
10
100
35
38
130
SO
18
38
4
13
150
139
156
205
38
1-6
104
104
113
128
125
15
30
60
25
30
6
10
20
100
100
135
125
125
150
150
125
150
50
125
125
125
150
50
BO
12
10
10
10
10
12
125
30
30
35
15
30
10
10
1-2
6
10
30
30
15
38
38
11
10
0
108
16
16
128
130
150
150
M5
150
175
20
11*0
217
150
110
244
2G0
150
215
50
329
175
50
200
200
150
150
150
200
125
140
125
173
125
30
60
60
60
GO
104
100
205
208
20
25
25
i
159 i
277
150
50
30
39
43
30
150
125
125
125
125
100
110
15
10
150
100
100
100
100
50
100
100
100
156
1«0
125
260
160
135
100
100
10
10
100
17
173
100
156
416
100
50
100
100
SO
30
15
1*0
120
20
200
150
240
320
200
125
140
180
30 :
40 ,
25 !
240
100
150
150
200
170
100
100
150
250
200
50
125
104
%
0
158
200
416
3B0
1G9
150
150
100
1-00
8 i 100
10
.
18 !
8
43
170
100
132 :
140 |
1 C o m m it t e e o n s t a t is tic s a n d c o m p e n s a t io n in s u r a n c e c o s t o f th e I n t e r n a t io n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r ia l
A c c i d e n t B o a r d s a n d Coanm issioaas.
2 P a y m e n t s u n d e r t h is s c h e d u l e a re e x c l u s i v e o f o r in li e u o f a ll o t h e r p a y m e n t s .
* P a y m e n t s u n d e r t h is s c h e d u l e a re i n a d d i t io n t o p a y m e n t s fa r t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y d u r in g t h e
h e a lin g p e r io d .
4 P a y m e n t s c o v e r t o t a l d is a b i li t y .
P a r t ia l d i s a b i l i t y m a y b e c o m p e n s a t e d a t e n d o f perk > ds given Ifer
n o t o v e r 300 w e e k s in a ll.
s M a x im u m , $5,000.
N
e P a y m e n t s u n d e r t h is s c h e d u le a re in a d d i t io n t o a ll o t h e r p a y m e n t s ,
7 M a x im u m , 13,000.
8 0 1© 15 y e a r s , d e p e n d i n g u p o n t li e a g e o f t h e e m p l o y e e a t t h e t i m e ©I i n ju r y .
99 F o r a c o m p le t e r e p o r t o f t h is c o m m i t t e e s e e p p . 123 t o 143 o f t h e O c t o b e r , 1017, M o n t h l y R e v i e w .
76
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF U N IT E D , STATES.
In comparing the laws of the several States as to the number of
weeks for which compensation is payable for the specified injuries
noted in the above table, care should be taken to see that the laws
are actually comparable. In most of the States, as already noted,
the benefits provided are in lieu of all other payments and are
therefore comparable. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, however,
these benefits are in addition to all other payments, including com
pensation for total disability during the healing period and for
partial disability if the injury has resulted in loss of earning power.
A number of the other States also pay additional compensation
during the healing period.
The laws of eight States 1 provide that compensation for permanent
partial disabilities shall be based upon the nature of the injury, the
occupation of the injured employee, and his age at the time of the
injury. The North Dakota law~ provides for a compensation sched
ule based upon the percentage of disability, but authorizes the com
pensation commissioner to determine what the percentage of disabil
ity should be in case of individual injuries. The compensation
bureau has formulated a partial disability schedule, stated in terms
of weeks, which is shown in Table 16. The West Virginia commis
sioner, under a similar act, formulated a schedule of permanent
partial disabilities which was incorporated in the law in modified
form in 1919. The Washington law provides for maximum amounts
in case of a few major injuries, leaving to the industrial insurance
department the working out of a detailed schedule of payments
based upon the statutory amounts. California, however, is the
only State wrhich has formulated an elaborate partial disability
schedule based upon the nature of the injury and the occupation
and age of the injured employee.
As already noted, most of our State laws compensate for certain
specified partial disability injuries by providing benefits payable for
fixed periods. v European laws differ from American laws in this re
spect by basing compensation for such injuries upon the percentage
of total disability caused by the injuries. Table 17 shows the
percentage of disability for specified injuries, based on schedule
of compensation for permanent total disability under the laws of the
various American States. Inasmuch as certain American laws pro
vide for payment during life, it would be impossible, without the
introduction of the actuarial basis of expectancy, to compute percent
ages for the temporary awards made, and these are therefore omitted
from this comparison. The schedule of the committee on statistics
of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions is also included.
i C a lifo r n ia , I d a h o , K e n t u c k y , N e v a d a , N o r t h D a k o t a , T e x a s , W a s h i n g t o n , a n d W e s t V i r g in ia .
77
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
Table 17.—C O M P U T E D
BASED
ON
PERCENTAGES
SCH EDULE
UNDER THE LAW S
OF
OF
D IS A B IL IT Y
C O M P E N S A T IO N
FOR
FOR
S P E C IF IE D IN J U R IE S ,
PERM ANENT
TOTAL
D IS A B IL IT Y
O F V A R IO U S S T A T E S .
L o s s o f—
S ta te .
Commit
tee 1......
A l a ...............
C o n n ............
D e ! ...............
H a w a i i___
I n d ...............
I o w a ............
K a n s ............
K y ................
L a .................
M a in e ..........
M i c h ............
M i n n ...........
N . J ..............
N . M e x ___
O k l a ............
P a ................
T e n n ...........
T e x ..............
V t .................
V a ................
A rm
I n d e x M id
(a t
d le
H a n d . T h u m b . fin
s h o u l
fin
ger.
d e r ).
g er.
R i n g L it t l e L e g
fin
fin
(a t
g er.
ger. h ip ).
P . ct.
P . ct.
75
36
40
41
50
27
30
33
78
40
38
36
36
38
25
30
27
38
100
50
56
50
48
50
30
40
36
50
29
50
43
36
50
65
40
21
40
35
27
37
54
30
P . ct.
P . ct.
P . ct.
P .c t .
P .c t .
5
5
5
4
5
5
3
4
8
6
6
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
10
11
6
7
7
6
19
15
10
12
10
8
8
7
14
14
13
10
12
11
15
6
12
11
6
5
7
6
6
5
9
4
7
8
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
3
2
2
6
4
3
5
7
4
5
8
0
6
3
4
4
3
9
11
8
6
7
7
5
5
15
15
6
11
10
12
7
4
F oot.
S ig h t
G rea t O th er
o f one
to e .
to e .
eye.
P .c t .
P .c t .
P .c t .
10
2
30
18
3
20
10
P .c t . P .c t .
P . ct.
40
23
25
28
5
5
7
66
12
12
6
5
4
4
75
32
35
41
92
40
50
48
48
44
30
35
32
44
27
35
43
32
50
65'
35
30
31
30
30
31
25
25
23
31
19
30
30
23
31
46
25
7
7
5
5
2
2
3
24
41
30
25
26
24
25
5
2
2
2
8
3
3
6
1
2
5
7
2
2
8
6
3
25
18
25
38
2
20
6
H ea r H ea rin g ,
one
e a r. ea rs.
P .c t .
50
27
30
19
100
20
6
24
10
7
28
40
26
16
27
37
65
20
20
18
25
19
20
1 S c h e d u le o f s e v e r i t y r a t in g s f o r m u la t e d b y t h e c o m m i t t e e o n s t a t is tic s a n d c o m p e n s a t io n in s u r a n c e
c o s t o f t h e I n t e r n a t io n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r ia l A c c i d e n t B o a r d s a n d C o m m is s io n s .
ADEQUACY OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
The value of the foregoing table for comparative purposes is im
paired to some extent because the percentages are not comparable
one with another, due to the lack of a common denominator. The
schedules for permanent total disability which were used as the
bases vary considerably and consequently the percentages, while
showing the relationship between permanent partial and permanent
total disabilities in a given State, are incomparable as between
different States. This relationship is shown in Table 18, in which
the scale of time losses as determined by the committee on statistics
and compensation insurance cost of the International Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions is used as the base.
In formulating this schedule of severity ratings of injuries, per
manent total disability, rated at 1,000 weeks, was used as the base
and the partial disabilities computed therefrom. The purpose of
the schedule, as already noted, was to obtain a more accurate meas
ure of industrial hazards, the schedule not being intended as a basis
of compensation awards. In fact, the committee disclaims any
such intention. Assuming, however, that the schedule is a reason
able measure of adequacy for compensation payments, it is interest
ing to note the percentages of adequacy of payments for the more
important injuries provided for by the several State compensation
78
COMPARISON -DF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
laws. These percentages refer only to periods of time during which
compensation is to be paid and do not take into account the per
cent or rate of compensation. In computing the percentages given
in the following table the committee’s schedule is taken as 100 per
cent.
T
able
1 8 .— P E R C E N T A G E
F IE D
IN J U R IE S
OF
P R O V ID E D
B . C. C O M M IT T E E
ADEQUACY
FOR
IN
OF
D U R A T IO N
OF
PAYM ENTS
T H E S E V E R A L -S T A T E S , U S I N G
FOR
THE
S P E C I
I. A . I. A .
S C H E D U L E A S 100 P E R C E N T .
L o s s o f—
S ta te .
M a jo r —
T ota l
d is a
b ilit y .
A r m (a t
s h o u l
d e r ).
H and.
Thum b.
In dex
lin g e r .
100
io o ;
100
UB0
100
70
36
76
92
23 1
28 i
24;
26!
381
31
26
33
36
51
i60
36
76
..............
76
33
35
35
38
43
40
70
80
60
7-4
24 |
23;
27;
27
27 5
31
31
38
31
31
30
60
120
50’
60
33
33
50
33
37
60
40
50
50
60
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
42
36
100
100
A l a b a m a .........................................
C o l o r a d o ..........................................
C o n n e c t i c u t ...................................
" D e la w a r e .. . . ..................................
iH a w a ii......... ...................................
55
27
28
28
26
42
30
31
32
49
30
30
40
30
30
30
60
60
40
60
27
27
60
50
m
50
60
90
60
160
60
70
70
80
21
I d a h o ................................................
I l l i n o i s ..............................................
I n d i a n a ............................................
I o w a ..................................................
K a n s a s .............................................
100
100
50
40
42
27
27
33
30
28
K e n t u c k y .......................................
L o u is ia n a .......................................
M a in e ................................................
M a r v l a n d ........................................
M i c h i g a n .........................................
42
40
50
^0*
50
27
27
30
30
25
30
30
M i n n e s o t a ------------------------------M i s s o u r i - . - ....................................
M o n t a n a ..........................................
■ N ebraska.........................................
N e v a d a ............................................
55
ICO
27
29 '
27
30 *
35
30 ,
33
30
35
43 ;
60
55
30
*60
65
27
42
30
22
49
42
52.
27
30
60
30
60
=60
60
33
55
29
27
27
40
60
104
3530
30
60
70
23
38
69
38
31
31
27
27
23
27
32
43
30
30
28
30
40
48
60
-30
40
60
80
70
90
27'
31
20
24
31
50
70
80
64
23
23
27
,40
30
30
34
55
69
27
N e w J e r s e y ....................................
:N e w M e x i c o ..................................
N e w Y o r k ......................................
N o r t h D a k o t a ..............................
O h i o . . .............................................
O k l a h o m a ......................................
O v eg & n .............................................
P e n n s y l v a n i a ...............................
jjSouth D a k o t a
T e n n e s s e e .................................. ..
T e x a s ................................................
U t a h ..................................................
V e r m o n t .........................................
V i r g i n i a .............. - ..........................
W e s t V i r g i n i a ..............................
W i s c o n s i n ....... ...............................
A v e r a g e ..............................
100
MK)
100
40
52
100
100
100
50
100
50
55
40
100
26
50
100
67
a©
66
S ig h t
o f one
eye.
60
35
38
...................
60
ISO
52
48
31
Gresat
toe.
100
C o m m i t t e e ..................................
100
L e g (a t
E oot.
h ip ). |
27
23
31
31
20
31
23
23.
38
31
23
26
24
29
29
31
35
31
38.
43.
60'
70.
30
70
40
92
S2
70
23
19
38
-38
23
31
25
00
70
138
23
51
29
20
70
78
" " " i o * ” * '* 7 0
21
/
51
52
31
§f);
60-
50
7676
60
33
33
43
43
33
60
33
-86
58
33
-60
33
60
33
35
45
60
30
40
•60
SO
50
33
33
44
£7
35
59
36
31
33
33
In considering the above table it must again be borne in mind
that several States pay compensation for total disability during the
healing period in addition to the schedule of payments for partial
disability. Two important facts stand out, however. Om is the
relatively greater w a rd s for the minor injuries, and the otter is & e
79
CO M PARISO N OF P A R T IA L D ISA B IL ITY SCH E D U LE S.
ismall proportionate awards for ail injuries. The average statutory
compensation provided for the loss of an arm, -&hand, or a foot is
approximately one-third of the loss o f earning capacity caused by
such injuries; It will be noted also that the adequacy of compen
sation dooreases 4irectly with, the severity of the injury. Moreover,
this schedule, as already noted, refers only to time. When the stat
utory wage percentages are applied the percentages of adequacy .are
still further reduced. This can better be shown by way of a con
crete illustration,. For example, what compensation benefits would
a man earning $.2-0 a week receive for various types of injuries under
the committee’s schedule md, mider the laws of Now York and New
Mexico ? Tbese two States am taken because they represent, respec
tively, the most liberal and least liberal of the compensation States.
T a b l e 1 9 . — C O M P A R I S O N O F B E N E F I T S U N D E R I . A . I . A . -B. € . C O M M I T T E E
AND
UNDER
C O M P E N S A T IO N L A W S O F N E W
YO RK
AND
NEW
M © n a y b e n e fit s r e c e iv e d .
T y p e o f in ju r ? .
C om
m it t e e .
P e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ................................................ ........
F o u r w e e k s ’ d i s a b i l i t y ....................................................... ..........
T ii ir t e e n w e e k s ’ d i s a b i l i t y ........................... ...............................
L o s s o f—
A r m a t shseniliier........................................................................
H a n d ..............................................................................................
T ir n n t b ...........................................................................................
I s d e x f i n g e r .................... ............................................................
L e g .at h i p . ...................................................................................
F # o t ................................................................................................. !
Orespt ^toe....................................................................................... i!
O n e e y e .................................................... .......................... ...........
!
RELATIVE SEVER ITY O F
U & m iW i
N ew
Y ork.
80
260‘
1 5 ,0 0 0
10,000
:2 , « 0Q
1 ,6 0 0
l a , 600
8,000
1,000
6,000
A M D
$ 1 3 ,3 3 3 ;
27
173 ,
4 ,1 6 0
3,253
890
613
3 ,8 4 0
2 ,7 3 3
507
1,7*07
N ew
M e x ico .
SS,200
20
m
1,100
mo
200
1 ,4 0 0
1,000
X50
1,000
SCH ED U LE
M E X IC O .
P e r C€nt
N ew
Y ork
b e n e fit s
ar^e o f
com
m it t e e
b e n e fit s .
P er cen t
N ew
M e x ico
b e n e fit s
a re of
com
m it t e e
b e n e fit s .
67
33
m
26
25
42
28
33
40
61
26
34
51
28
10
11
15
• 20
9
13
15
17
I O W E B LIMB INJURIES.
It msay be well to emphasize here that white from the medical iand
economic standpoint the loss of a foot or leg, under present indus
trial conditions, is more serious than the loss of n thand or arm, the
compensation schedules of every State are based, upon the theory
that industrial workers who lose an upper limb suffer a greater eco
nomic loss than those who lose a f oot or a leg. Even the committee
on statistics of the International Association of Industrial Accident
Boards and Commissions seems to have adopted this view in formu
lating its severity rating schedule. The common, and practically
the only, argument in substantiation of this belief is that “ it stands
to reason.” Yet an analysis of Table 20, giving the results of four
independent investigations, shows the contrary to be true.
There are two main reasons for this. In the first place the eco
nomic severity of foot and leg injuries is accentuated by the fact
80
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
that a preponderant number occur in industries in which the loss of
the member is a practical bar to employment. A one-legged man is
effectively excluded from most of the operations in the transporta^
tion, construction, lumbering, and mining industries; and it is in
employments of this character that three-fourths of the foot and leg
injuries occur. In California 91 per cent of the permanent foot and
leg injuries occurred in nonmanufacturing industries and 60 per cent
occurred in transportation and construction. An analysis of the
permanent disability accidents in Massachusetts during the first four
years’ operation of the compensation act shows that 75 per cent of
the hand and arm injuries occurred in manufacturing industries and
25 per cent in nonmanufacturing industries, while the percentages as
regards foot and leg injuries were exactly reversed, being 25 per
cent in manufacturing and 75 in nonmanufacturing industries.
Nearly all of the latter injuries occurred in the building trades, trans
portation, and construction.
Ordinarily, when one thinks of the relative industrial usefulness of
an upper and a lower limb one has in mind factory operations. And,
of course, in operating a machine a one-legged man is less handicapped
than a one-armed man; but machine operators do not lose their legs;
they lose their hands and arms. Moreover, in manufacturing indus
tries, in which the majority of upper-limb injuries occur, the injured
workman can often go back to the same employer or the same occu
pation. On the other hand, the industries dangerous to lower limbs are
the industries in which the use of lower limbs is practically indis
pensable. A larger proportion of those who sustain foot and leg
injuries, therefore, must seek a new employer, and this fact affects
adversely their reemployability (see Table 20).
In the second place, the greatest industrial handicap heretofore
suffered by a crippled worker has been not his inability to perform
work, but his inability to get a job. Potential ability to perform
work is of little use to a workman who by reason of his injury is pre
vented from seeking employment or is not employed even if he does
find a prospective job.
Table 20 shows the relative severity of upper and lower limb inju
ries as shown by four independent investigations:
SI
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
T a ULE 2 0 . — R E L A T I V E S E V E R I T Y O F U P P E R A N D L O W E R
L IM B IN J U R IE S , A S S H O W N
B Y V A R IO U S IN V E S T IG A T IO N S .
A v e r a g e p e r io d
o f t o t a l d i s a b i li t y ,
in m o n th s .
P e r c e n t o f ca se s
i n w h ic h d is a
b ilit y co n tin u e d
fo r 18 m o n t h s o r
m ore.
H and
or a rm .
H and
or a rm .
P la c e o f in v e s t i g a t i o n ,
M a s s a c h u ce tt s ..................................
C a lifo r n ia ...........................................
N e w Y o r k C i t v ..............................
D e n m a r k . . . . 1................................
1 3 .4
1 2 .7
F oot
o r le g .
2 4 .8
1 3 .4
F oot
o r le g .
26
28
59
42
19
55
P er cen t u n em
p lo y e d .
H and
or a rm .
F oot
o r le g .
30
41
8
* 24
62
17
P er cen t reem
p lo y e d b y sa m e
e m p lo y e r or in
s a m e o c c u p a t io n .
H and
or a rm .
Foot
o r le g .
52
i 40
30
i 32
227
*16
* P e r c e n t r e e m p lo y e d b y s a m e e m p l o y e r .
2 P e r c e n t o f p e r s o n s r e e m p lo y e d i n s a m e o c c u p a t io n s .
It will be noted that in practically every case the loss of a foot or a
leg is more serious than the loss of a hand or an arm as regards length
of total disability, per cent of persons reemployed by same employer
or in same occupation, and per cent of persons remaining unemployed
after the injury. In this connection see also discussion by Dr.
Schnitzler given on pages 89 to 90.
FOREIGN SCHEDULES.
A strict comparison between American and European scales is not
possible. Under the European systems payment is usually con
tinuous during life, and the compensation payments begin only after
expiration of a period during which, in many instances, benefits are
derived from other funds.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics undertook some time ago to secure
the official scales of disability (Invaliditats-STcala) of the German
associations (Berufsgenossenschaften), but obtained such a scale in
only one of the threescore instances in which they were supposed to
exist, this being the scale of the association managing the insurance
in the Bavarian woodworking industries. A number of such associa
tions stated that the matter was in the hands of the administrative
bodies, and such tables were not used. There are available, however,
several reports presenting the results of a number of studies of
foreign compensation schedules, while the Twenty-fourth Annual
Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Workmen’s Insurance and
Compensation Systems in Europe, contains some material along these
lines, notably the official schedule used in administering the Russian
workmen's insurance law, presented at pages 2107-2111 of the report.
Such data as are at hand at this time are collected in Table 21, the
list of injuries being one that was drawn up by the authors (Imbert,
Oddo, and Chavernac) of a French work “ Accidents du Travail:
1 7 2 3 0 8 °— 20— B ull. 275------- 6
82
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF U N IT E D STATES.
Guide pour PE valuation des Incapacities.’ ’ The data on which
this classification and rating are based are cited as from official
sources, the German, French, and Austrian material being official
adjudications or ratings, while the Italian law itself furnishes the
rates for that country. From these four sources, and some others
which the authors consider as of commanding value, the scale pre
sented in the column headed “ Imbert, etc.,” is derived; the four
succeeding columns present the basic data contained in the work
above mentioned. The West Virginia scale, given in the next column,
is contained in the compensation act as amended in 1919.
Dr. Maximilian Miller published a work in 1908 on the subject of
degrees of disability under the insurance legislation of Germany,
“ Die Erwerbsunfahigkeit und ihre Ursachen.” This author presents
a table based on the collective experience of a number of German
insurance associations giving different rates for skilled and unskilled
workmen. These rates are presented in the two columns headed
“ Miller77 on page 84. The next column presents the data furnished
by the Bavarian woodworkers’ association mentioned above, while
the column immediately following contains the Russian standard
adopted in 1904, which was drawn up by the medical council of
the Minister of the Interior for the guidance of the physicians con
cerned with the administration of the workmen’s insurance law of
that country.
This scale and the one presented in the column headed “ KonenK dln” present forms of disability not contained in the other scales, to
which attention will be given in another place, the items here pre
sented being such as correspond to the list of Imbert. The basis of
the scale presented by Konen-Koln is the decisions of the German ad
judicating officers. The next column, headed “ Bahr,” is the result of
the consideration of the experience of important German, Swiss, and
Austrian insurance associations by F. Bahr. The two last-named
scales are presented in a volume, “ Handbuch der Unfallerkrankungen,” by Dr. CL Thiem, 1909. Dr. Thiem undertakes to draw up
from the above and other data a table of his own, systematizing the
degrees of disability in accordance with the various facts at hand.
The result of his labors is given in the last column of Table 2L
83
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
T
arle
2 1 .— D E G R E E S
OF
D IS A B IL IT Y F O R S P E C IF IE D IN J U R IE S , A C C O R D IN G
R IO U S S T A N D A R D S A N D A U T H O R IT IE S , E X P R E S S E D
IN P E R C E N T A G E S O F
TO
VA
TOTAL
D IS A B IL IT Y .
N a t u r e o f in ju r y .
L o s s o f r i g ii t o r m a jo r :
A r m ........................... ..............................................
F o r e a r m .................................................................
D is a r t i c u l a t i o n a t s h o u l d e r .........................
H a n d .............. ....................................... .................
T h u m b ....... . . .......................................................
Trmlvidjfmj m e t a c a r p a l b o n a ................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y . ..................................
Tndfl-jr firfg fir.. . , . T___ T- - - r ___________ T w o p h a la n g e s ...................................... .. .
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
MidfTIo f i n g e r . . . _ _ T. ___________________
T w o p h a la n g e s ........................... .
OrrfJ pfralfvn*' o n l y . T, T______________
T w o p h a la n g e s ..........................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
L i t t l e f i n g e r . ........................................................
T w o p h a la n g e s ...........................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
T h u m b *vnd in d fiT fingp.r _ _ , _______
I n d e x a n d m id d l e f i n g e r ..............................
R i n g a n d l i t t l e fin g e r s ......... ..........................
T h u m b , in d e x , a n d m id d le f i n g e r s ....
T n d e x , m i d d l e , a n d r f n g ^ fin fe r s ..............
M id d le , r i n g , a n d l i t t le fin g e r s . . ,
T h n t r ib a n d th rp o fin p e r s . . . . . . . T
.
F o u r fin g e r s ...................... ............................
L o s s o f l e f t o r m in o r :
A r m ..........................................................................
F o r e a r m ......... . . . . . ...... . . . ................. ..
D is a r t i c u l a t i o n a t s h o u l d e r .........................
H a n d ........................... ...........................................
T h u m b ........... .......................................................
I n c l u d i n g m e t a c a r p a l b o n e ................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
I n d e x fin g e r ................................................ ........
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................ ..
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y . . . ................................
M i d d le fin g e r .............................................. ..
T w o p h a la n g e s ................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
R i n g fin g e r ................................................... ..
T w o p h a la n g e s ...........................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ................................
L it t l e f i n g e r . ....................... .................................
T w o p h a la n g e s ..........................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ....................................
T h u m b a n d i n d e x f i n g e r ..............................
I n d e x a n d m id d l e fin g e r s ............................
M id d le a n d r i n g f i n g e r s . . ..............................
R i n g a n d l i t t l e f i n g e r s . ..................................
T h u m b , i n d e x , a n d m i d d l e fi n g e r s ____
I n d e x , m i d d l e , a n d r i n g f i n g e r s .. . . . . . .
M i d d le , r in g , a n d li t t le fin g e r s ..................
T h u m b a n a t h r e e fin g e r s .............. ...............
F o u r fin g e r s .........................................................
L e s s o f th ig h :
D is a r t ic u la t io n ....................................................
A m p u t a t i o n .........................................................
L o s s o f le g ...................... ................................................
L o s s o f f o o t ....................................................................
F o r e p a r t o f f o o t o n l y . ................... ..............
L o s s o f g r e a t t o e .........................................................
I n c l u d i n g m e t a t a r s a l b o n e ..........................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .............................................
L o s s o f o t h e r t o e .........................................................
L o s s o f a l l t o e s .............................................................
L o s s o f s i g h t , o n e e y e ...............................................
L o s s o f h e a r i n g , o n e e a r:
P a r t ia l......................................................................
C o m p le t e ................................................................
L o s s o f n e a r in g , b o t h e a r s :
P a r t ia l.............. ................ .....................................
C o m p le t e ................................................................
I m b e r t ,.
e tc.
A u s t r ia n
F ren ch
G erm a n
I m p e ria l
a d ju d ic a a d ju d ic a
O ffic e
t io n s .
t io n s .
r a t in g s .
I t a lia n
la w .
W est
V i r g in i a
la w .
P e r c e n t.
75
70
85
65
30
35
15
15
P e r cen t.
60-75
6 6-75
P e r ce n t.
6 0-85
70-80
P e r cen t.
6 6-83
P e r cen t.
80
7 0-80
P e r cen t.
60
55
50-75
30
5 5-8 0
1 4 -6 0
5 0-83
2 5-33
70
30
50
10-20
16
15
20
12
10
10
6
10
8
10
0-10
20
0-10
0-10
6 -3 0
8 -1 5
7 -2 0
2-12
0-10
10
8?
7
5
3
5
5
10
8
5
8
6
3
45
25
20
20
55
35
30
65
50
1 0-15
5 -1 0
3 -1 0
0
1 -1 0
15
8 -11
8
0-10
0-10
10
0-10
0
5 -1 0
0- 8
6- 8
3- 8
0- 6
12
40
25-50
3 3 -4 0
2 0-33
5 0-6 0
4 5-60
33
5 0 -8 0
20
&
8-10
3
5
o
5
32
20
3 4 -7 0
3 3 -4 0
15
15
40
30
10-20
3 0-5 0
4 0-5 0
5 0 -6 0
6 0 -6 5
60
20
32
65
60
75
55
25
30
60
6 0-75
60-80
60
66-83
6 6-75
75
6 5 - 75
60
55
5 0 -6 0
25
5 0-5 5
10-20
50-832 5-30
65
25
20
10
10
8
10
10
10
0-10
5 -1 3
1 1 -1 3
15
5 -1 6
8 -1 5
3 -1 0
5
8
6
2
8
6
2
6
4
1
0-10
0-10
0-10
0 -10
0 -10
0-10
0-10
0
50
12
12
10
15
6-20
0-10
6
8
7
1-1 0
3
8-10
5- 8
2- 6
3 -1 0
3
5
2-10
1- 6
8 -10
3
32
35
20
2 0-35
20
13
3 0 -4 0
10
15
15
12
45
25
33
45
20
. ...
.1
______
.
20
2 0 -3 5
50
40
8 5 -9 0
7 0 -8 0
6 0-65
45-55
2 0-30
1 2-1 6
15-20
4- 5
3- 5
2 0-2 5
2 0 -5 0
8-10
40
30
32
85
66
5 0 -7 0
5 0 -6 0
3 5 -5 0
1 0 -1 5
5 0-83
66
6 5-90
4 3-65
6 0-6 5
4 5 -6 5
5- 8
10
70
GO
50
50
60
50
45
35
30
7
15
10
2- 8
5
2 0-2 5
25
10-15
1 0 -4 0
1 5-30
1 0-15
50
2 0-3 0
15-50
7 -2 0
5
30
33
35
4 -2 2
i
..................... 1
10
45 J
40
5
4
25
33
8 '4
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
Table 2 1 . — D E G R E E S
OF
D IS A B IL IT Y F O R
S P E C IF IE D IN J U R IE S , A C C O R D IN G
T O .V A -
R IO U S S T A N D A R D S A N D A U T H O R IT IE S , E X P R E S S E D IN P E R C E N T A G E S O F T O T A L
D I S A B I L I T Y — C o n c lu d e d .
M ille r .
B ava
R u s
r ia n
s ia n
w ood
sta n d
w ork ers’
ard ,
a s s o c ia
1904.
t io n .
N a t u r e o f in ju r y .
S k ille d
w ork
m en.
U n
s k il le d
w ork
m en.
L o s s o f r ig h t o r m a jo r :
A r m .................... ........................................................
F o r e a r m ....................................................................
D is a r t i c u l a t i o n a t s h o u l d e r ..........................
H a n d ., ,.
....... _ ____________ ________
T h u m b ......................................................................
I n c l u d i n g m e t a c a r p a l b o n e .................
P e r ct.
80
70
P e r c t.
60
60
70
30
40
60
20
30
15
15
ii -i3
16 - 1 8
10
5 | -6
1 3 -1 4
10
4 -5
8 -1 0
10
3
11 -1 2
Tnflp.x fin g e r
. -, - - _______ - - ...............
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
M i d d le fin g e r
...............................................
10
10
T w o p h a la n g e s
P e r ct.
70 - 8 0
70 - 8 0
22 -2 6
.........................................
10
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ...................................j
T h u m b a n d i n d e x f i n g e r .T............................
I n d e x arid m i d d l e f i n g e r s .............................
M id d le a n d r i n g f i n g e r s ..................................
P e r ct. P e r ct.
75
75
75
75
75
66i
30
2 5 -3 0
30
15
25
1 5 -2 0
15
B a h r.
T h ie m .
P e r ct.
5 0 -6 6 §
50 -6 6 §
P e r ct.
6 6 f-8 0
5 0 - 66§
18 -2 7
60 -6 6 $
25 - 3 0
3 0 -3 3 $
12 -1 7 *
15 -1 8
10
5
15
5 -1 0
12
10
5
10
5 -1 0
10
10
10 -1 7 h
10 -1 2
40 -5 0
40 - 5 0
60 -7 0
40 - 5 0
12 -1 7 |
50 -6 0
20 -2 5
25 - 3 0
15
8 -1 2
12 -1 5
3£- 4
50
35
25
20
60
50
35
70
70
T h u m b , i n d e x , a n d m i d d l e fin g e r s .........
T h u m b a n d t h r e e f i n g e r s ..............................
F o u r f i n g e r s ...........................................................
L o s s o f le f t o r m in o r :
A r m ............................................................................
F o r e a r m ....................................................................
D is a r t i c u l a t i o n a t s h o u l d e r ..........................
H a n d ..........................................................................
T h u m b ......................................................................
I n c l u d i n g m e t a c a r p a l b o n e .................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
I n d e x fin g e r o n l y ................................................
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
M i d d le f i n g e r .........................................................
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
R i n g f i n g e r ................................................
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
L i t t l e f i n g e r ...........................................................
T w o p h a l a n g e s ............................................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y .....................................
T h u m b a n d i n d e x fi n g e r ................................
I n d e x a n d m i d d l e f i n g e r s ..............................
M i d d le a n d r i n g f i n g e r s ..................................
R i n g a n d l i t t le f i n g e r s .....................................
T h u m b , i n d e x , a n d m i d d l e fin g e r s .........
I n d e x , m i d d l e , a n d r i n g f i n g e r s ................
M i d d le , r i n g , a n d l i t t l e f i n g e r s ...................
T h u m b a n d t h r e e f i n g e r s ..............................
F o u r f i n g e r s ...........................................................
L o s s o f t h ig h :
D is a r t i c u l a t i o n .....................................................
A m p u t a t i o n ...........................................................
L o s s o f l e g ........................................................................
L o s s o f f o o t ......................................................................
F o r e p a r t o f f o o t o n l y .......................................
L o s s o f g r e a t t o e ...........................................................
I n c l u d i n g m e t a t a r s a l b o n e ............................
O n e p h a l a n x o n l y ..............................................
L o s s o f o t h e r t o e ...........................................................
L o s s o f a ll t o e s ...............................................................
L o s s o f s i g h t , o n e e y e ...............................................
L o s s o f h e a r in g , o n e e a r :
P a r t i a l .......................................................................
C o m p l e t e ...............................................................
L o s s o f h e a r in g , b o t h e a r s :
P a r t i a l ..................................... . ...............................
C o m p l e t e .................................................................
K onenK o ln .
70
60
50
50
60 -7 0
60
20
30
50
20
20
60 - 7 0
19 -2 2
15
15
* 9 i^ ii”
1 4-16
60
65
60
65
25
25
10
15
10
50
66|
5 0 -6 0
2 0-25
42— sj10
10
10
10
i i -1 3
5
10
5 -1 0
10
10
3£- 4
7 -8
5
10
5 -1 0
10
10
2K 3
9 -1 1
10
72 -1 0
10 -1 2
3 - 3£
40
25
20
10
50
40.
20
60
55
80
60
50
3 0-40
10
70
60
50
3 0-40
10
33
25
10
20
20
50
50 -7 0
40
85
75
60
40
40 -5 0
40 -5 0
30 -5 0
10
5 -1 0
15 -2 0
75
65
60
50
10
5 -6
5 0 -6 0
35 -5 0
25
35
25 - 4 0
10
20
10
25
0 -1 0
20
20
50
50
65
10 -4 0
50 -6 0
5 0 -6 0
5
.75
50 -6 6 §
50
0 -1 0
3 -5
’ 20 -3 3 |
20 - 3 0
85
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
As mentioned in the introduction to the foregoing tables, certain
forms of disability are provided for in some of these scales which
are not mentioned in the American laws except by the provision in
some cases that the loss of the use of a member is equivalent to the
loss of that member. Because of their interest in the general field,
even though not strictly comparable with any American material,
some of these rates are given in Table 22:
Table
3 2 .— D E G R E E S
IN G S , A C C O R D IN G
O F D IS A B IL IT Y F O R
T O C E R T A IN
S P E C IF IE D IN J U R IE S O T H E R T H A N
F O R E IG N
STANDARDS, EXPR ESSED
M A IM
IN . P E R C E N T
A G E S O F T O T A L D IS A B IL IT Y .
R u s s ia n s t a n d a r d ,
1904.
K 6n e n -K o I n .
N a m e o f in ju r y .
R ig h t.
S t if f w r i s t j o i n t .................................................................................... ......................
S t if f e lb o w join t, a t fu l l e x t e n s io n o r fu ll f l e x i o n ...................................
S t if f e lb o w j o i n t a t r ig h t -a n g le f l e x i o n ........................................................
L o o s e e l b o w j o i n t ......................................................................................................
S t if fn e s s o f e l b o w a n d w r i s t j o i n t s .................................................................
S t if fn e s s o f s h o u l d e r j o i n t .......................... : .....................................................
I n a b i l i t y t o r a is e a r m a b o v e h o r i z o n t a l p o s i t i o n ...................................
H a b i t u a l d i s l o c a t io n o f s h o u l d e r ................................................... ............ . .
L e ft .
30
50
35
60
60
60
40
25
40
25
50
50
50
30
20
10
S t if fn e s s o f k n e e j o i n t a t e x t e n s i o n ................................................................
S t if fn e s s o f k n e e j o i n t s t r o n g l y f l e x e d o r o v e r e x t e n d e d ....................
L o o s e k n e e j o i n t .........................................................................................................
F r a c t u r e o f p a t e lla , w it h in ju r y t o e x t e n s io n a t t a c h m e n t s . . . . . .
40
50
50
R ig h t.
40
60
40
60-70
70
50
30
35
L e ft.
30
50
30
50-60
60
40
20
15
50
6 0-7 0
50
50
EYE INJURY SCHEDULES.
Injuries to the eye have received comparatively little attention in
American laws. The chief difficulty confronting compensation com
missions in this connection is the translation of impairment of vision
into percentage of disability. The International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions has recently given the
matter some consideration and intends to make it a special subject
for discussion at its next annual meeting.
The following compensation table for visual losses of one eye was
officially adopted by the Chicago Ophthalmological Society at its
meeting on November 10, 1919. This table represents, in the
opinion of the society, a fair basis of settlement for visual losses in
one eye resulting from industrial accidents. Most of the compensa
tion commissions, however, have refused to adopt this table because
they consider it inadequate,,
86
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES,
T
2 3 .— C H IC A G O
able
O P IIT H A L M O L O G IC A L
S O C IE T Y ’ S
C O M P E N S A T IO N
TABLE
FOR
V IS U A L L O SSE S O F O N E E Y E .
P er cen t
o f v is u a l
e ff ic i e n c y .
V is u a l c a p a c it y .
P er cen t
o f lo s s o f
v is i o n .
20/20..
100.0
2 0 /3 0 ..
2 0 /4 0 ..
2 0 /5 0 ..
2 0 /6 0 ..
9 4 .5
8 9 .0
S 3 .5
7 8 .0
22.0
2 0 /7 0 ..
2 S /8 0 ..
2 0 /9 0 ..
7 2 .5
6 7 .0
6 1 .5
5 6 .0
5 0 .0
2 7 .5
S 3 .0
3 8 .5
4 4 .0
5 0 .0
20 / 100.
20/ 110.
0 .0
5 .5
1 1 . 0=
1 6 .5
■ P ercen t
o f v is u a l
e f f ic i e n c y .
V isu a l c a p a c ity .
20/120............................................
2 0 /1 3 0 ................ ..........................
20/140 ............................................
2 0 /1 5 0 ...........................................
20/1 60 ............................................
4 1 .0
3 6 .5
3 2 .0
2 8 .5
2 3 .0
20/1 70 ............................................
2 ^ 1 8 0 ............................................
2 0/1 90 ............................................ !
20/200............................................ |
1 8 .5
1 4 .0
12.0
10.0
P ercen t
o f lo s s o f
v is i o n .
5 9 .0
6 3 .5
68.0
7 1 .5
7 7 .0
8 1 .5
86.0
88.0
9 0 .0
The subject has been given detailed attention in European prac
tice, the medical council of the Imperial Russian Ministry of the
Interior having adopted what is known as Jostenrs table for com
puting the degrees of disability due to the weakening of eyesight.
The table is as follows:
T
able
2 4 .— J O S T E X ’ S T A B L E F O R D E T E R M IN IN G
IN G
S.
0 .5 0
.4 0
.3 0
.20
.10
.00
DEGREES
F R O M W E A K E N IN G
0 .5 0
0.00
6 .5 0
1 3 .5 0
20.00
2 6 .5 0
3 3 .5 0
OF D IS A B IL IT Y
0 .4 0
0 .3 0
0.20
0.10
0.00
6 .5 0
1 4 .5 0
1 3 .5 0
20.00
22.00
3 0 .0 0
4 1 .0 0
5 2 .0 0
6 2 .5 0
7 3 .5 0
2 6 .5 0
3 8 .0 0
5 0 .5 0
6 2 .5 0
7 5 .0 0
8 7 .0 0
3 3 .5 0
4 6 .0 0
6 0 .0 0
7 3 .5 0
8 7 .0 0
22.00
3 0 .0 0
3 8 .0 0
4 6 .0 0
3 1 .5 0
4 1 .0 0
5 0 .5 0
6 0 .0 0
RESU LT
O F V IS IO N .
100.00
N o t e . — S . S t a n d s fo r s t r e n g t h o f v i s i o n ; t h e fir s t h o r i z o n t a l lin e o f fig u r e s g i v e s t h e r e m a in in g s t r e n g t h
o f o n e e y e , a n d t h e fir s t v e r t i c a l li n e t h e r e m a in i n g s t r e n g t h o l v i s i o n o f t h e o t h e r e y e . T h e fig u r e a t t h e
cr o s s in g o f t h e t w o lin e s p r o c e e d in g fr o m t h e r e s p e c t i v e fig u r e s in t h e fir s t h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l li n e s g iv e
t h e d e g r e e o f lo s s o f v is i o n . T h u s , w h e n t h e v i s i o n i n o n e e y e i s 0. 20, a n d t h e o t h e r 0 .1 0 , t h e d i s a b i l i t y is
62.50 p e r c e n t .
B e s id e s t h e s tr e n g th , o f c e n t r a ] v i s i o n , o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , s u c h a s a c c o m m o d a t i o n , m u s c u la r a c t io n o f t h e
e y e , e t c . , a s w e ll a s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f t h e in ju r e d , m a y b e t a k e n i n t o c o n s id e r a t io n .
In a small volume by a German authority, Dr. Maschke* this
subject is the sole matter of consideration. A French translation of
this volume is entitled u Guide Pratique pour la Determination des
Rentes en Cas &’Accidents Octilaires.” The table presented by Dr.
Maschke is said by him to be the rating actually employed in German
practice in determining insurance benefits. It differs in detail from
Jos ten’s table used by the Russian authorities, making more refined
distinctions as to degrees of disability.
The method is the same as in Josten’s table, i. e., the left-hand
column represents the visual power of one eye and the horizontal
line of fractions represents the visual power of the other, while the
figure in the body of the table found at the vertex of a right angle
drawn from the two fractional quantities represents the percentage
of a total disability that is allowed for the particular case. Thus if
the left-hand figure, one-seventh, represents the visual capacity of
87
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
one eye, and the fraction, one-half, represents the visual capacity of
the other, the amount of compensation allowed would be 20 per cent
of a full allowance. It will be noted that in 8 cases an amount
of compensation in excess of the standard full allowance is granted;
the amounts ranging from 105 to 125 per cent. This is explained by
the fact that it is considered that the person whose loss of vision is so
extensive as to involve complete or practically complete blindness is
entitled to a higher rate of compensation because he is not only
incapable of following any trade but in addition requires personal
care and attention.
T able
2 5 .— G E R M A N T A B L E F O R D E T E R M IN IN G D E G R E E S O F D IS A B IL IT Y R E S U L T IN G ^
FROM
Visual
capacity.
1 t o § ....... .
* .................
* .................
i .................
* .................
T**...............
0.................
1 to §
0
0
5
10
10
15
15
29
20
25
h
W EAKN ESS
i4
I
m
45
55
V IS IO N .
y
is
10
10
25
40
40
45
50
55
60
65
5
10
25
25
30
30
35
0
5
10
10
15
20
25
25
30
35
OF
15
20
30
45
60
70
75
80
85
90
10
15
30
43
55
60
65
70
75
80
tV
iV
15
25
35
50
65
75
85
90
95
105
0
75
20
25
40
55
70
80
90
95
100
115
20
30
45
60
75
85
95
100
110
125
25
35
55
65
80
90
105
US
125
125
With the foregoing tables may be compared a table prepared by
the State compensation commissioner of West Virginia “ from a
combination of the tables used in Germany and Russia for compen
sation purposes.” The table is self-explanatory, its method of use
being identical with that of tables 24 and 25.
Table 2 6 .— P E R M A N E N T
D IS A B IL IT IE S
OF
EYE
EXPRESSED
IN
PERCENTAGE
OF
T O T A L D I S A B I L I T Y A S U S E D B Y W E S T V I R G I N I A C O M P E N S A T IO N C O M M IS S IO N E R .
V is u a l c a p a c ity .
20/20...................................
1 9/2 9 ...................................
1 8/2 0 ...................................
17/20..................................
1 6 / 2 0 . . . . .........................
15-/20..................................
1 4/2 0 ..................................
1 3 /2 0 ..................................
12/20...................................
n / 2o : ................................
10/20..................................
9 /2 0 ....................................
8/20.....................................
7 /2 0 ...........................
6/20.....................................
5 / 20 . . - ................................
4 /2 0 .....................................
3 /2 0 .............. .................... ..
2 / 20 . . . ..............................
1/20 .................................. ..
0/0.......................................
20/20
0
1
3
5
6
8
10
11
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
26
28
30
31
33
19/20
1
3
5
7
9
10
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
37
18/20
3
5
7
9
11
12
14
15
17
If
21
23
25
26
28
33
32
33
35
37
40
17/20
5
7
9
11
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
27
28
30
32
35
3d
38
40
43
16/20
15/20
6
8
10
12
9
11
13
14
16
18
2©
15
16
18
20
22
22
2*4
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
•
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
45
47
49
14/20
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
2a
30
32
35
37 !
39
41
44
46
48
50
51
13/20
11
13
15
18
20
22
24
27
29
31
33
35
38
40
42
44
47
m
51
53
57
12/20
13
15
17
2©
22
24
26
29
31
34
36
38
41
43
46
4-8
50
S3
55
57
60
11/20
15
17
19
21
24
26
28
31
34
36
38
4®
43
46
48
50
53
55
57
m
G3
88
T a b l e
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
2 6 .— P E R M A N E N T
D IS A B IL IT IE S
OF
EYE
EXPRESSED
IN
PERCENTAGE
OF
T O T A L D I S A B I L I T Y A S U S E D B Y W E S T V I R G I N I A C O M P E N S A T IO N C O M M IS S IO N E R —
C o n c lu d e d .
10/20
V is u a l c a p a city .
20/20...........................
19/20...........................
18/20............................
17/20............................
16/20............................
15/20............................
14/20............................
13/20............................
12/20............................
11/20...........................
10/20............................
9/20.............................
8 /2 0 ....:....................
7/20.............................
6/20.............................
5/20.............................
4/20.............................
3/20.............................
2/20-’. ......................
1/20.............................
o/o.:............................
16
19
21
23
26
28
30
33
36
38
41
43
46
48
50
53
56
58
60
63
66
9/20
18
21
23
25
28
30
32
35
38
40
43
46
49
52
54
56
59
61
64
67
70
8/20
20
23
25
27
30
32
35
38
41
43
46
49
52
55
57
60
62
65
68
71
73
7/20
21
24
26
28
32
34
37
40
43
46
48
52
55
57
59
62
65
67
70
73
77
6/20
5/20
23
26
28
30
34
36
39
42
46
48
50
54
57
59
62
65
66
71
74
77
25
27
30
32
36
38
41
44
48
50
53
56
60
62
66
68
71
74
77
80
80
83
4/20
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
71
75
78
81
84
87
3/20
28
31
33
36
40
43
46
49
53
56
58
61
65
67
71
74
78
81
84
87
90
2/20
30
33
35
38
42
45
48
51
55
57
60
64
68
70
74
77
81
84
87
90
94
1/20
31
35
37
40
44
47
50
53
57
60
63
67
71
73
77
80
84
87
90
94
97
0/0
33
37
40
43
46
49
54
60
63
66
70
73
77
80
83
87
90
94
97
100
Four weeks’ compensation is allowed for each per cent of disability,
amounting to 50 per cent of the average weekly earnings (maximum,
$12; minimum, $5) for the time. For a disability of from 86 to 100
per cent, 50 per cent of the average weekly earnings is paid for the
remainder of life.
PRESENT SCHEDULES LARGELY THEORETICAL.
It is evident that the disability schedules on pages 83 to 87 are
much more extensive than those established by any American statute,
while on the other hand the West Virginia table for injuries to the
eyes presents greater refinements of gradation than appear in the
foreign tables. But by far the most elaborate system is that devel
oped under the California commission, ‘ which is still confessedly
unequal to all contingencies that arise— as must of necessity be the
case until the exhaustion of a practically limitless series of permuta
tions and combinations. In the meantime much that has of. neces
sity been done on a basis of theory and estimate will be brought into
comparison with the results of observation and experience, with the
result that authoritative data will be used in the place of opinion and
the value of such aids to the determination of equitable awards cor
respondingly increased.
In this connection it will be of interest to notice the conclusions
reached by an Austrian authority2 with reference to the mode of
making awards in cases of permanent partial disability. Austria
differs from Germany in administrative methods in this field, local
2 F e r d in a n d S c h n it z le r , d i r e c t o r o f t h e W o r k m e n ’ s A c c i d e n t I n s u r a n c e I n s t i t u t e fo r M o r a v ia a n d Silesia,
a n d p r o fe s s o r i n t h e T e c h n i c a l I n s t i t u t e a t B r ii n n .
d e n t s i n A u s t r ia .
D e t e r m in a t i o n o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f in d u s t r ia l a c c i
M o n t h l y R e v i e w o f t h e U . S . B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s , D e c e m b e r , 1916, p p . 3 1 -6 7 .
COMPARISON OF PARTIAL DISABILITY SCHEDULES.
80
insurance institutes haring charge of the work in Austria, while in
Germany there is a central body of last resort, the Imperial Insur
ance Office, through whose activities a uniform interpretation of the
compensation law is secured as well as an effective continuous devel
opment. It is pointed out by Mr. Schnitzler that the Austrian insti
tutes have in all cases established a more or less extensive expert
medical service, by whose advice the determination of compensation
is effected, though there is some variation as to the controlling
influence of such advice as compared with that of the technical experts
who are also consulted. With the introduction of accident insurance
as a governmental undertaking, the Austrian institutes, lacking in
original basic experience, adopted scales contained in the insurance
contracts of private insurance companies, but quite generally increas
ing the rates of compensation. Of these company scales it is said
also that they were not based on observation of actual conditions, but
merely represent assumptions on which the two contracting parties
have agreed, so that there is no justification for the conclusion that
slight modifications of these scales will secure equitable and satisfac
tory awards. Even when there is more of a free hand given, as in the
courts of arbitration, it is said that disproportionate weight is given
to medical opinion, the laymen chosen as technical advisers being
usually less familiar with the law than the medical and official mem
bers and not having experience in the great number of individual
cases of which the latter are actually or presumably cognizant.
From the article by Ferdinand Schnitzler above referred to the
following is quoted:3
With increasing frequency the admission is encountered in tech
nical literature that the compensation scales now in use for specified
visible injuries are based on very faulty principles. In inquiring into
the origin of the scales in use, as, for instance, for loss of an eye, 25
to 33J per cent; loss of the right arm, 75 per cent, etc., one will be
surprised to find that none of them is based on systematic observation
of facts, i. e., of the actual earnings made by persons who have
suffered such injuries.
At the beginning of compulsory workmen’s accident insurance the
insurance institutes had merely adopted the compensation scales con
tained in the insurance contracts o f private insurance companies, but
quite generally increased the rates of compensation. Likewise the
scales of the private insurance companies (so-called scales for injuries
to members of the body, Gliedertaxe) were not based on observation
of actual conditions, but represent merely assumptions on which the
two contracting parties have agreed. One is, therefore, mistaken in
assuming that the usual compensation scales represent averages de
duced from actual conditions, and that by small increases or decreases
of the rates of these scales full justice can be done to the individual
conditions of injured persons. The medical experts, who as a rule
a M o n t h l y R e v i e w o f t h e U . S . B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s , D e c e m b e r , 1916, p p . 38, 39./-
9€
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
have no knowledge of the actual earnings of a large number of persons
afflicted with a certain infirmity, of course, uphold the traditional
scales of compensation which are also adopted by the courts of arbi
tration. In the case of insurance institutes which also consider the
earning possibilities of pensioners the officials charged with the deter
mination of the amounts of compensation, supported by observa
tions of their own, often have doubts as to the value of the usual
compensation scales, but, on account of the pressure in favor of main
taining existing conditions brought to bear upon them by tradition
and by medical experts, they are hardly able to achieve results. This
would only be possible if a general systematic observation of the pen
sioners should be introduced and the results scientifically compiled.
Neither in Austria nor in Germany has this so far been attempted.
A t any rate, in the case of several insurance institutes, the valua
tion of consequences of accident is no longer left entirely to the medi
cal experts. In addition to the medical opinions these institutes
consider the earnings of the injured persons after the accident and
the exj>eriences of other persons similarly injured.
It might be supposed that in the courts of arbitration less weight is
given to the meaical opinion because the presiding judge is assisted
by four associates taken from practical life. In fact, it has been
shown that the courts of arbitration deviate only in exceptional in
stances from the medical opinion. As a rule the court of arbitration
simply adopts the rate of compensation proposed by the physician,
and in case the physician in his proposed rate has left open a certain
range, as, for instance, 15 to 25 per cent, it generally awards the
higher rate, and in some instances goes even beyond that.
The true bases of awards are discussed, the conclusion being
reached that it is not the visible injury in itself that is the decisive
factor, but that questions of recovery, adjustment, the opportunity
for employment under changing industrial conditions, and other ele
ments must be considered. The fact that an injured person has
suffered no immediate wage loss is not conclusive, nor is disability
to pursue one’s original employment to be finally determinative.
“ The method of investigation of the earning capacity of insured
persons must be adapted to the organization of the insurance and to
special conditions in the individual territories of the insurance
institutes.”
As a result of systematic observation and the accumulation of ex
perience, the prospect is held out of the establishment of more satis
factory guides for administration. In this connection see also the
table on percentage of adequacy of duration of payments for specified
injuries provided for by American laws, given on page 78.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
State legislatures at last seem to have awakened to the fact that
adequate medical benefits are essential, if injured employees are to
receive just and proper treatment under workmen's compensation
laws.v No less than 17 States increased their medical benefits in
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
91
1919. Although the functional restoration of industrial cripples
and their adaptation to vocational pursuits require adequate medical
and surgical treatment, only six 4 compensation laws require the em
ployer to furnish unlimited medical services. Several laws make no
provision for medical treatment whatever, and in others the low
maximum limits make adequate treatment impossible.
This failure to provide adequate medical service not only indi
cates the opposition of the employers but also reflects the inability of
society to comprehend the great importance and social value of the
speedy restoration of the earning capacity of injured workers. The
benefits provided for in compensation laws, instead of being regarded
as a means of effecting rehabilitation, have been considered as the end
itself. The old idea of indemnity for negligence on the part of the
employer toward his injured employees has been all too prevalent.
Here and there men with broader vision have pointed out that the
objective of compensation legislation should be nothing less than the
rehabilitation of injured workers as completely and quickly as pos
sible, and that the payment of compensation and medical benefits
is simply a means of accomplishing this result. Compensation
commissioners, however, have too often been satisfied with the per
formance of their duties if the benefits provided in the acts have been
paid in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Furthermore, the hospitals have made no adequate provision for
handling industrial accident cases, nor does the average hospital
organization permit effective reconstruction work. This work of
rehabilitation not only requires careful and daring surgery but alsb
demands unremitting aftercare with special supporting^ apparatus,
arrangements for massage, exercises, and electrical treatment, and
construction of artificial appliances and education in their use, all of
which must be done or supervised by specially trained and specially
competent surgeons. Very little effective work along these lines
has been done, since hospitals have never desired this sort of work
particularly. Then, too, there has been a sad lack of cooperation be
tween the hospital and the employer or his representative, the in
surance company. The latter all too frequently regards medical ex
penses as pure losses. Even if all insurance companies were broad
minded enough to accept the principle of reconstruction, the very
number of such separate units would make effective cooperation
difficult.
Until recently very little has been attempted systematically in
this country to secure suitable reemployment for permanently dis
abled workmen, many of whom, because of their injuries, are unable to
continue their former occupations and must therefore seek new kinds
* C a lifo r n ia , C o n n e c t ic u t , I d a h o , N o r t h D a k o t a , P o r t o R i c o , a n d t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t .
92
CO M PARISO N OF C O M PEN SATIO N L A W S OF U N IT E D STATES.
of work. During the past two years, however, a number of States
have made special provision for rehabilitating and reeducating
industrial cripples (see p. 74). In some States compensation com
missions have held that injured workmen were entitled to compen
sation benefits until suitable employment had been provided for them.
This has led insurance companies to engage in employment work in
haphazard fashion, but the results have been entirely inadequate
and unsatisfactory. The greatest drawback has been the lack of
definite and centralized responsibility to carry out and supervise
this important work of economic rehabilitation.
The usual medical provision in the law is that the employer shall
furnish reasonable or necessary medical, surgical, and hospital service
during specified periods, in some cases limited as to maximum amounts.
As already stated, only six States place no limitation except reasonable
ness upon the amount of medical service which the employer must
furnish. All other States limit the employer’s liability either as to
length of time or amount, or both. The following table shows the
States classified as to length of time and maximum amounts for
which the employer is liable:
T able
2 7 .— C O M P E N S A T IO N
W H IC H
N on e.
(3 )
A la s k a .
A r iz .
N. H.
STATES,
C L A S S IF IE D
BY
M E D IC A L S E R V IC E IS F U R N IS H E D , A N D
2 w eeks.
( 0)
4 w eeks.
(3 )
30 d a y s .
(5 )
8 w eeks.
D e l. ($ 7 5 ).
M a s s .1
M o n t .($50).
N . M ex.
($ 5 0 ).
T e x .1
V t . ($ 1 0 0 ).
Iow a1
( $ 100) .
N .J .1
($50).
R . I.
I n d .1
M e . 1 ($ 1 0 0 ).
P a . 1 ( $ 100).
T e n n . ($100).
Va.
111.1 ($ 200) .
K a n s .2
(3 )
($ 1 5 0 ).
M o . ($ 2 00 ).
LENGTH
OF
M A X IM U M
T IM E
D U R IN G
AM OU NTS.
60 d a y s .
(4 )
90 d a y s .
( 6)
U n lim it e d a s
t o t im e .
(1 6 )
A l a . ($ 1 0 0 ).
C o lo . ($ 2 0 0 ).
N . Y .1
O k la .1 ($ 100).
K y . ($ 100).
M ic h .
M i n n .1 ($ 1 0 0 ).
N e v .1
S. D a k .3 ($ 1 5 0 ).
“ W i s .1
C a lif.
C onn.
H a w a i i ($ 1 5 0 ).
Idah o.
L a . ($ 1 5 0 ).
M d . ($ 1 5 0 ).
N e b r . ($ 2 0 0 ).
N . D ak.
O h i o 1 ($ 2 0 0 ).
O r e g .1 ($ 2 5 0 ).
U t a h ($ 5 0 0 ).
W a s h .4
W . V a . ($ 6 0 0 ).
W y o . ($ 1 0 0 ).
u . S.
1 A d d itio n a l se rvice in special cases o r at d is cre tio n o f co m m is s io n .
2 50 d a y s.
* 1 2 w eeks.
E m p lo y e e s m u s t p a y on e -h a lf o f m e d ica l cost.
4
It will be noted that 3 States 5 furnish no medical service, except
that in fatal cases involving no dependents the medical expenses of
the last sickness shall be paid by the employer. S ix6 compensation
acts provide unlimited service. Nine laws place no limitation upon
the period during which medical treatment shall be furnished, but
do limit the amount; while nine limit the period, but do not limit
® A la s k a , A r iz o n a , a n d N e w H a m p s h ir e .
<C a lifo r n ia , C o n n e c t ic u t , I d a h o , N o r t h D a k o t a , P o r t o R i c o , a n d t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t .
93
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
the amount. All of the other laws place limitations upon both period
and amount.
Table 28 gives more in detail the amount of medical aid and the
conditions under which it is furnished. It will be noted that many*
States, in addition to the time limitation, also limit the amount,
ranging from $50 in Montana and New Mexico to $600 in West Vir
ginia. Others allow additional service in certain cases, at the dis
cretion of the commission or court.
2 8 — A M O U N T O F A N D C O N D IT IO N S
T able
S A T IO N L A W S IN
FOR
M E D IC A L
S E R V IC E
UNDER
COM PEL*
T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S .
M e d ic a l a n d s u r g ic a l a id .
S ta te .
P e r io d .
60 d a y s ..
A la b a m a ..
A la s k a —
A r iz o n a .
C a li fo r n ia . . .
C o l o r a d o ------
U n li m i t e d ..
60 d a y s .........
C o n n e c t ic u t .
U n lim it e d ..
D e la w a r e .
H a w a i i—
I d a h o .........
2 w eeks —
U n lim it e d .
____ d o ............
Illin o is .
8 w eeks.
In d ia n a .
30 d a y s ..
Iow a.
4 w eeks.
K a n s a s --------
50 d a y s .
90 d a y s ..
K e n t u c k y ..
U n lim it e d .
L o u is ia n a .
M a in e .................. .
M a r y l a n d ......... .
M a s s a c h u s e t t s ..
M i c h ig a n .........
M in n e s o t a .... . .
30 d a y s .........
U n li m i t e d ..
2 w e e k s .. . .
90 d a y s .........
.........d o ...........
M i s s o u r i. .
M on ta n a .
8 w eek s.
2 w eeks.
N e b r a s k a .................
U n lim it e d .
N e v a d a .....................
90 d a y s .........
N e w H a m p s h ir e .
N e w J e r s e y ............
4 w eek s.
N ew M e x ico .
2 w eek s.
N e w Y o r k ..........
N o r th D a k o t a ..
O h i o .......................
60 d a y s ........
U n li m i t e d ..
____ d o ............
O k l a h o m a ........
60 d a y s .........
O r e g o n ................
U n lim it e d ..
P e n n s y lv a n ia .
30 d a y s .........
M a x im u m a m o u n t a n d o t h e r q u a lif ic a t io n s .
L o n g e r a t o p t i o n o f e m p l o y e r ; m a x i m u m $ 100.
O n l y in d e a t h c a se s i n v o l v i n g n o d e p e n d e n t s ; m a x i m u m $150 fo r
m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s b e t w e e n i n ju r y a n d d e a t h .
R e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l a n d b u r i a l e x p e n s e s o n l y i n d e a t h c a s e s in
v o lv in g n o d e p e n d e n ts .
S u c h s e r v i c e a s r e a s o n a b ly r e q u ir e d .
M a x im u m $200 u n le s s t h e r e is a h o s p it a l f u n d . S p e c ia l o p e r a t in g fe e
o f $50 in ca s e o f h e r n ia ; a ls o a d d i t io n a l fo r d e n t a l s e r v ic e , m a x i m u m
$100.
S u c h s e r v ic e a s d e e m e d r e a s o n a b le b y a t t e n d in g p h y s ic ia n . S p e c ia l
p r o v is i o n fo r s e a m e n o n U n it e d S ta te s v e s s e ls .
I f re q u e ste d b y e m p lo y e e or ord e re d b y b o a rd ; m a x im u m $ 75 /
M a x im u m $150.
R e a s o n a b l e s e r v ic e fo r r e a s o n a b le p e r io d . H o s p i t a l b e n e fit fu n d
p e r m it t e d i n li e u o f s t a t u t o r y p r o v is i o n .
M a x im u m $200; f u l l h o s p it a l s e r v i c e w h il e c o m p e n s a t io n is p a y a b le ;
a d d i t io n a l m e d i c a l a n d s u r g ic a l a id a s l o n g a s h o s p it a l t r e a t m e n t is
re q u ir e d .
S u c h s e r v ic e a s d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y b y a t t e n d in g p h y s ic i a n o r b o a r d ,
lo n g e r a t o p t i o n o f e m p l o y e r . E m p l o y e e m u s t a c c e p t u n le s s o t h e r
w is e o r d e r e d b y b o a r d ; 30 d a y s ’ a d d i t io n a l t r e a t m e n t i f n e c e s s a r y
i n o p i n io n o f b o a r d .
I f r e q u e s t e d b y e m p l o y e e , c o u r t , o r c o m m is s io n e r ; m a x i m u m $100
$100 a d d i t io n a l i n e x c e p t i o n a l ca s e s .
I f d e m a n d e d b y e m p l o y e e ; m a x i m u m $150.
U n le s s b o a r d fix e s o t h e r p e r io d . M a x im u m $100, o r $200 fo r h e r n ia
o p e r a t io n s .
R e a s o n a b le s e r v ic e s u n le s s e m p l o y e e re fu se s t o a c c e p t ; m a x i m u m
$150.
M a x im u m $100; a d d i t io n a l s e r v ic e i f n a t u r e o f i n ju r y r e q u ir e s .
S u c h s e r v ic e a s m a y b e r e q u ir e d b y c o m m is s io n ; m a x i m u m $150.
L o n g e r in u n u s u a l c a se s a t d i s c r e t io n o f b o a r d .
M a x im u m $100; u p o n r e q u e s t o f e m p l o y e e c o u r t m a y a l l o w a d d i
t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t , i f n e e d is s h o w n .
M a x im u m $200.
U n le s s e m p l o y e e r e fu s e s ; m a x i m u m $50 u n le s s t h e r e is a h o s p it a l
fu n d ; s p e c i a l o p e r a t in g fe e o f $50 i n c a s e o f h e r n ia .
U n le s s e m p l o y e e r e fu s e s ; m a x i m u m $200; e m p l o y e r n o t li a b l e fo r
a g g r a v a t io n o f i n ju r y i f e m p l o y e e re fu s e s t o a c c e p t .
T i m e m a y b e e x t e n d e d t o 1 y e a r b y c o m m i s s i o n ; t r a n s p o r t a t io n
fu r n is h e d .
M e d ic a l s e r v ic e a n d b u r i a l e x p e n s e s o n l y in d e a t h c a se s i n v o l v i n g
n o d e p e n d e n t s ; m a x i m u m $ 100.
U n le s s e m p l o y e e re fu se s s u c h t r e a t m e n t ; m a x i m u m $50; i n ca s e s
r e q u ir in g u n u s u a l t r e a t m e n t b u r e a u m a y e x t e n d p e r io d t o 17
w e e k s , b u t n o t o v e r $200; s p e c i a l o p e r a t in g fe e o f $150 i n c a s e o
h e r n ia .
M a x im u m $50, u n le s s t h e r e is a h o s p it a l fu n d ; s p e c i a l o p e r a t in g fe e
o f $75 i n c a s e o f h e r n ia .
S u c h s e r v ic e a s n a t u r e o f in ju r y r e q u ir e s , lo n g e r i f n e c e s s a r y .
S u c h s e r v i c e a s n a t u r e o f in ju r y m a y r e q u ir e .
S u c h s e r v ic e a s c o m m i s s i o n d e e m s p r o p e r ; m a x i m u m $200 e x c e p t
i n u n u s u a l ca se s .
M a x im u m $100. P e r io d a n d a m o u n t m a y b e in c r e a s e d in d is c r e t io n
, o f t h e c o m m is s io n .
I n c lu d e s t r a n s p o r t a t io n ; m a x i m u m $250; c o m m i s s i o n m a y a ll o w
a d d i t io n a l s e r v ic e .
U n le s s e m p l o y e e re fu se s, i n w h ic h c a s e e m p l o y e r n o t l i a b l e fo r
a g g r a v a t io n o f i n j u r y ; m a x i m u m $ 100, e x c e p t in .h o s p i t a l ca ses.
94
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION
law s
of
u n it e d
states.
-T a b l e 2 8 . — A M O U N T O F A N D C O N D I T I O N S F O R M E D I C A L S E R V I C E U N D E R C O M P E N
S A T I O N L A W S I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S — C o n c lu d e d .
M e d ic a l a n d s u r g i c a l a id .
S ta te .
P e rio d .
R h o d e I s l a n d ............
S o u t h D a k o t a ............
T e n n e s s e e .....................
M a x im u m a m o u n t a n d o t h e r q u a l if ic a t i o n s .
U n l i m i t e d ____
N e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e a n d s u s t e n a n c e a s p r e s c r ib e d b y c o m
m is s io n .
12 w e e k s ............
30 d a y s ................
M a x i m u m $150.
L o n g e r a t o p tio n o f e m p lo y e r; e m p lo y e e m u st a cce p t; m a x im u m
$ 100.
T w o w e e k s a d d i t i o n a l i n h o s p i t a l ca s e s .
M a x im u m 1500; h o s p it a l b e n e fit fu n d p e r m it t e d in li e u o f s t a t u t o r y
p r o v is i o n .
M a x i m u m $100.
S u c h s e r v i c e a s d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y b y a t t e n d in g p h y s ic i a n o r c o m
m is s io n ; lo n g e r a t o p t i o n o f e m p l o y e r . E m p l o y e e m u s t a c c e p t
u n le s s o t h e r w is e o r d e r e d b y c o m m is s io n .
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n in c l u d e d ; e m p l o y e e s m u s t c o n t r ib u t e o n e -h a lf
m e d ic a l cos t.
M a x im u m $150; $300 i n s e v e r e c a s e s ; $600 i n p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y
ca s e s -w here d i s a b i li t y c a n b e m a t e r ia ll y re d u c e d .
L o n g e r i f d i s a b i li t y p e r io d c a n b e r e d u c e d ; C h r is t ia n S c ie n c e t r e a t ’
m e n t p e r m it t e d u n le s s e m p l o y e r r e fu se s b y f ilin g w r i t t e n n o t ic e .
M a x im u m $100 u n le s s t h e r e is a h o s p it a l fu n d .
C o m m i s s i o n s h a l l fu r n is h n e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l s e r v ic e fo r r e a s o n a b le
p e r io d u n le s s e m p l o y e e r e fu s e s ; t r a n s p o r t a t io n fu r n is h e d i f
n ecessa ry .
T e x a s ..
U t a h ................................
2 w e e k s ..............
V e r m o n t .....................
V i r g in i a .........................
14 d a y s ................
30 d a y s ................
W a s h i n g t o n ................
U n l i m i t e d .........
U n l i m i t e d .........
. d o ..................
W e s t V ir g in ia .. . .
.
W i s c o n s in ................
90 d a y s _____
W y o m i n g .....................
U n it e d S t a t e s ............
U n l i m i t e d ____
KIND OF SERVICE.
Most of the States provide that “ reasonable or necessary medical,
surgical, and hospital service’ ’ must be furnished, leaving the ques
tion of reasonableness or adequacy to the commissions or courts to
determine.7 Twenty-six States include medicines within this pro
vision; 4 8 include artificial members; 14 9 include crutches or other
appliances; 1210 include nursing; while Nevada, Oregon, Washington,
and the Federal Government include transportation. The medical
.service provisions of the California law are probably the most com
prehensive of all the State compensation acts in this respect. For
example, the provision, ‘ ‘such medical, surgical, and hospital treat
ment, including nursing, medicines, medical and surgical supplies,
crutches and apparatus, including artificial members, as may reason
ably be required to cure and relieve from the effects of the in ju ry/’
is about as inclusive as it is possible to make it. The inclusiveness of a
particular medical provision is dependent also upon the expressed
purpose of this provision. Where the law provides for such medi
cal, surgical, and hospital treatment as may reasonably be required
“ to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury” this has the
effect of increasing the scope of the medical service. Five States11
have this particular provision.
7 F o r a d e t a il e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s s u b j e c t s e e a r t i c l e , <fW h a t t h e t e r m 'm e d i c a l s e r v i c e ’ i n w o r k m e n ’ s
c o m p e n s a t io n la w s in c l u d e s , ” b y M . C . F r i n k e , j r . , in M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w fo r J u l y , 1919, p p . 187 t o 205.
8 C a lifo r n ia , N e v a d a , O r e g o n , a n d W i s c o n s i n .
9 A la b a m a ^ C a lifo r n ia , C o l o r a d o , I d a h o , K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M a r y la n d , M in n e s o t a , N e v a d a , N e w J e r s e y ,
N e w Y o r k , O k la h o m a , T e n n e s s e e , a n d W is c o n s in ,
10 C a lifo r n ia , I d a h o , I n d i a n a , K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M a r y l a n d , M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , O h io , O k l a
h o m a , a n d U ta h .
11 C a lifo r n ia , C o lo r a d o , I ll in o i s , M is s o u r i, a n d W i s c o n s i n
MEDICAL AKD SURGICAL SERVICE.
95
It must not be understood, however, that the specific services just
mentioned are not furnished in the States which do not specifically
mention them in the law. The inclusiveness of the term depends
upon the liberality of the administering body. Furthermore, em
ployers and insurance carriers as a matter of policy often furnish
additional service, including artificial limbs and other surgical appli
ances, in order to restore the earning capacity of the employees and
thereby reduce their compensation costs.
ADEQUACY OF MEDICAL SERVICE.
Although adequate medical treatment is absolutely essential to
complete rehabilitation and restoration of an injured employee’s earn
ing capacity, only six laws, as already noted, require the employer
to furnish unlimited medical service. Several States make no pro
vision whatever for medical treatment, while in others the low maxi
mum limits make adequate treatment impossible. Reference to the
preceding table shows that in 14 States providing medical service the
employer is ordinarily not required to furnish such service beyond
30 days. Quite a number of States, in addition to the time limits,
also place a limitation upon the amount or cost of service to be pro
vided, thus increasing the inadequacy of the laws still further. Some
idea of the inadequacy of the medical service provisions may be
obtained from a study of the severity of industrial accidents. In
what percentage of accident cases does the period of disability extend
beyond the statutory medical periods of the workmen’s compensation
acts? Though the disability period is not necessarily coterminous
with the medical period, the length of the disability periods will
nevertheless throw considerable light upon the adequacy of the
medical service furnished.
Table 29 shows, for certain States, the percentage distribution of
nonfatal industrial accidents causing disability of more than one week,
classified by periods of disability. Accidents which resulted in an
incapacity of one week or less were eliminated for two reasons: First,
the number of minor accidents reported varies enormously among
the several States, thus impairing the comparability of the accident
data. For example, in California the disability in more than one-half
of the total accidents reported terminated within one week, whereas
in Washington less than one-fourth of the cases terminated within
this period. Second, the adequacy of the medical provisions of com
pensation laws can best be determined from the number or percentage
of the serious accidents affected by the statutory limitations placed
upon the medical service to be furnished. In other words, the
adequacy of medical treatment provided is determined not by the
percentage of total accidents covered but rather by the percentage of
serious accidents adequately treated. An investigation made by the
96
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
Ohio Industrial Commission in 1914 showed that of 8,277 ca;ses of
minor accident (less than 1 week’s disability), the medical expense in
82 per cent was under $5 and in 97 per cent under $10.
T able
2 9 .— P E R C E N T A G E D IS T R IB U T IO N
O F N O N F A T A L IN D U S T R IA L A C C ID E N T S
O V E R O N E W E E K 'S D I S A B I L I T Y I N C E R T A I N
S T A T E S , C L A S S IF IE D
B Y P E R IO D
OF
OF
D IS A B IL IT Y .
W ash
in g t o n ,
P e r i o d o f d i s a b i li t y .
O regon ,
1915
1917
N evada,
(13,941 1913-1916 (1,808
te m p o
(1,730
tem p o
ra ry
to ta l
c a s e s ).
n o n fa t a l
e a s e s ).
ra ry
to ta l
c a s e s ).
C a li
fo r n ia ,
1917
(27,775
tem po
ra ry
tota l
c a s e s ).
W is
c o n s in ,
tota l
c a s e s ).
.7
38.8
16.3
11.4
8.8
6.3
4.4
3.0
2.3
1.6
1.1
1.1
.8
*3.3
8 .8
37.4
22.7
12.9
8.6
5.1
3.1
2.4
1.6
1.1
.8
.7
.5
2.3
.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
O v e r 1 t o 2 w e e k s .............
O v e r 2 t o 3 w e e k s .............
O v e r 3 t o 4 w e e k s .............
O v e r 4 t o 5 w e e k s .............
O v e r 5 t o 6 w e e k s .............
O v e r 6 t o 7 w e e k s .............
O v e r 7 t o 8 w e e k s .............
O v e r 8 t o 9 w e e k s .............
O v e r 9 t o 10 w e e k s ...........
O v e r 10 t o 11 w e e k s ........
O v e r 11 t o 12 w e e k s .........
O v e r 12 t o 13 w e e k s .........
O v e r 13 t o 26 w e e k s
O v e r 26 w e e k s .....................
32.3
19.6
11.7
8.8
5.2
4.2
2.9
2.8
1.4
1.3
29.9
19.8
14.7
9.4
5.5
4.0
2.5
4.0
2.1
1.0
37.8
20.4
12.7
10.0
4.6
3.4
1.8
2.0
1.1
.9
.9
1.4
5.1
2.5
.4
3.6
2.1
.6
1.3
2.8
T o t a l ...........................
100.0
100.0
.9
S ta n d a rd
M a ss a
1916-17 c h u s e t t s , A c c i d c n t
T a b le ( R u
1917
(15,915
b in o w )
(47,190
tem po
(56,968
te m
ra ry
n o n fa t a l
c a s e s ).
p ora ry to ta l
c a s e s ).
\
>
QO
ou. A
\j
30.1
]
I
/
\
r
42.2
21.3
12.3
7.8
OQ 7
J
)
47
3.1
1
2.1
i.6
1.0
J
\
I
J
r
8.7
4.6
2.8
100.0
\
I
-8
A m e r ic a n
T a b le
(50,462
tem po
ra ry
to ta l
c a s e s ) .1
35.1
21.6
12.4
8.6
5.3
3.8
2.6
2.0
1.6
1.0
.6
.5
1.6
.4
2 3.1
3 1.2
100.0
100.0
9
.7
1 T h is is a r e v i s io n o f t h e R u b i n o w S t a n d a r d T a b l e a s c o m p u t e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c il o n W o r k
m e n ’ s C o m p e n s a ti o n I n s u r a n c e ,
a O v e r 13 t o 25 w e e k s .
3 O v e r 25 w e e k s .
It will be noted that Nevada and Massachusetts include all nonfatal
accidents of over one week’s disability while the other States and the
Standard Accident Table cover only temporary disabilities. This
explains in part at least the smaller percentages of less serious acci
dents in Nevada and Massachusetts. The percentages are possibly
affected also by the differences in the completeness with which acci
dents are reported in the several States. There is a close similarity
between Washington, Nevada, and Massachusetts and also between
Oregon, California, and Wisconsin, the former group having relatively
fewer minor accidents and a greater number of long-term disabilities.
It will be observed also that Dr. Rubinow’s Standard Accident Table
has a relatively greater number of accidents causing disability of 1 to 2
weeks and fewer causing disability of over 13 weeks. The new
American Table formulated by the National Council on Workmen’s
Compensation Insurance parallels closely the Wisconsin and Oregon
distribution.
The following tabulation of the above data shows the percentages
of accidents in which disability did not terminate within certain
specified periods:
M ED ICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
T able
ONE
3 0«— P E R
CENT
OF
IN D U S T R IA L
W E E K ’S D IS A B IL IT Y
C E R T A IN
S P E C IF IE D
D is a b il it y d i d n o t
t e r m in a t e i n —
2 w e e k s ...............................
3 w e e k s ...............................
4 w e e k s ...............................
8 w e e k s ...............................
9 w e e k s ...............................
13 w e e k s ............................
IN
A C C ID E N T S , IN
W H IC H
D IS A B IL IT Y
97
C E R T A IN
D ID
NOT
STATES, OF OVER
T E R M IN A T E
W IT H IN
P E R IO D S .
W ash
in g t o n .
N evada.
6 7 .7
4 S. 1
3 6 .4
1 5 .3
12. 5
7 .5
C a li
fo r n ia .
O re g o n .
■70.1
50. 3
3 5 .6
1 4 .2
5 .8
11 .0
62. 6
39. 9
2 7 .0
7 .8
8 .7
4 .1
3 .1
6 1 .2
44. 9
3 3 .5
6 2 .2
41. 8
2 9 .1
1 0 .3
8 .3
4 .4
10.2
W is
c o n s in .
M a ssa
ch u se tts.
S t a n d a r d A m e r ic a n
T a b le .
T a b le .
3 9 .9
1 6.2
5 7 .8
35. 5
2 4 .2
6.5
6 4 .9
4 3 .3
3 0 .9
7 .5
2.0
4 .3
6 9 .9
10 .6
8 .6
6.2
Using the Washington statistics as the criterion, it will be seen
that in those States which limit the medical service to two weeks
about 68 per cent of the accidents are inadequately provided for; in
those States having a four weeks' limit this inadequacy covers 36 per
cent of the accidents; even in the 90-day States 7 per cent are insuffi
ciently provided for. The relative inadequacy of the other limits
may be obtained from the preceding tables.
The inadequacy of medical service due to the statutory time limits
is still further increased in some States by limitations upon the
amount or cost of treatment which employers are required to furnish.
These maximum limitations range from $50 in Montana and New
Mexico to $600 in West Virginia. The effect of such limitations may
be seen from the following table which shows the medical costs of
accidents in Ohio.
T able
3 1 .— N U M B E R A N D P E R C E N T O F IN D U S T R IA L A C C ID E N T C A S E S IN O H IO F R O M
M A R . 1 , 1912, T O
D E C . 31, 1913, C L A S S I F I E D
BY
AM OUNT
O F M E D IC A L
N u m b er.
A m o u n t o f m e d ica l a w a rd .
F a t a l.
U r e’ e r $25......... .................................
$25 t o $ 5 0 . . . . . ..................................
$50 J o $100..........................................
$100 t o $150........................................
$350 t o $200........................................
$200 a n d o v e r ...................................
14
* T o t a l ........................................
30
8
4
1
1
2
P erm a
n e n t d is
a b i li t y .
161
50
32
29
7
27
266
A W A R D .*
P er cen t.
T em po
rary
d i s a b i li t y
of over 1
w eek.
T o ta l.
F a t a l.
4
4,033
302
103
24
18
13
4 6 .7
2 6 .7
1 3 .3
3 .3
3 .3
6 .7
4 ,1 9 7
4 ,493
100. 0
3 ,8 5 8
244
67
14
10
1 O h io I n d u s t r ia I C o m m is s io n , D e p a r t m e n t o f I n v e s t ig a t i o n a n d S t a tis t ic s .
2 O n e p e r m a n e n t t o t a l ca s e .
P erm a n e n t d is
a b i li t y .
T em po
ra ry
d isa b ilitj^
of over 1
w eek.
T o ta l.
6 0 .5
1 8 .8
9 1 .9
5 .8
12.0
1 .6
3 .4
2 .6
2.6
.3
.2
!i
8 9 .8
6 .7
2 .3
.5
.4
.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
R e p o r t N o . 2 ,1 9 1 4 , p p . 2 3 -3 0 .
It will be noted that a low maximum limitation upon the amount
of medical service affects adversely cases of permanent disability in
particular. In 40 per cent of such cases the medical costs were $25
or more; in 21 per cent the costs were $50 or more; and in 2.6 per cent
the costs wrere $200 or over. In 10 per cent of the total accident cases
172308°— 20—Bull. 275------ 7
98
COMPARISON* OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
the medical costs were $25 or more. In several of the States the
maximum limit is high enough to cover practically all except the more
serious injuries, but it is in severe injury cases that the workmans
needs are greatest.
It must be admitted, however, that in many cases employers and
insurance companies furnish medical service in excess of the statu
tory requirements, especially if by so doing the period of disability
ean be materially shortened. Furthermore, it is a common practice
of many of the larger employers, who have an organized establish
ment medical service and hospital, to provide full medical treatment
irrespective of the statutory provisions of the compensation acts.
SELECTION OF PHYSICIANS.
Should the employer or the employee have the right to select the
physician in industrial accident cases? And should this right or
privilege be exclusive or restricted? These mooted questions have
in recent years received a great deal of attention in the workmen’s
compensation field. The subject is particularly important because
it directly affects the employee, the physician, and the employer.
The employee is interested in his own speedy recovery and in having
a physician in whom he has confidence; the employer is interested
in reducing his compensation and medical costs; and the physician is
interested both financially and professionally. The interplay of
these various and sometimes conflicting interests constantly causes
friction and creates innumerable difficulties.
The statutory provisions and actual practices as regards selection
of physicians are as follows:
Selection by employee at employer’s expense.—In eight States 12 an
injured employee is granted the right to select his own physician
at the employer’s expense. In Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode
Island, and Washington this right is granted specifically in the act,
although in Nebraska the right is limited to cases of dismemberment
or major surgical operations, In Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Ver
mont the employee is granted this privilege by virtue of rules or inter
pretations of the administrative commission. In addition, the Texas
act allows the employee to select the physician if the employer, having
engaged a contract physician, fails or refuses to file the contract agree
ment with the industrial accident board; and in Colorado an “ em
ployee may, upon the proper showing to the commission, procure its
permission at any time to have a physician of his own selection attend
him.”
Selection by employee at epnployee’s expense.— The laws in five
States (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, and South Dakota)
i2
M a s s a c h u s e t t s , N e b r a s k a ( d is m e m b e r m e n t s a n d m a jo r s u r g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s o n l y ) , N e v a d a , O h io , O r e
g o n , R h o d e I s la n d , V e r m o n t, a n d W a s h in g to n ,
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
99
grant the employee the right to select his own physician— at the
employee’s expense, however.
Selection by employee i f employer neglects or refuses io provide ade
quate service.—If the employer neglects or refuses to furnish com
petent medical service, or in case of an emergency, the employee is
given the right to select the physician at the employer’s expense in
20 States.13
Authority io order change of physicians.—If the physician furnished
is incompetent or the medical service inimical to the injured em
ployee, the laws of nine States 14 provide that a change of physicians
shall be made if requested by the administrative commission or by
the employee. In Washington, also, the State medical aid board,
by rule, reserves the right to transfer the treatment of an injured
workman to a surgeon whenever it becomes evident that the man is
not receiving the service that he should at the hands of the physi
cian of his choice.
Selection of physician by employer.—In all of the other Stat es which
provide for medical service in case of injury the employer or his
representative, the insurance carrier, has the right to select the phy
sician. Most of these laws, however, make no specific provisions as
to the selection of physicians, but the courts and commissions gen
erally hold that the obligation of the employer to “ furnish” or
“ provide” medical service carries with it the privilege of choosing
the physician. This practice has been based on two theories: First,
that the employer is more competent to judge of the efficiency of the
doctor employed and to provide efficient medical and hospital treat
ment; and, second, that it is to the interest of the employer to fur
nish the very best medical and surgical treatment, so as to minimize
the result of the injury and to secure as early a recovery as possible.
As a matter of practice, however, in quite a large percentage of cases
the employee is allowed to choose his own physician, but the ex
tent of this practice depends upon the policy of the employers and
insurance carriers. The large employers, especially those having an
organized medical service within their establishments, generally in
sist upon their legal right to select the physician.
Panel system.— N o State compensation law makes specific provision
for a panel of physicians from which a choice is to be made. Cali
fornia, however, has an incipient panel system, as shown in the fol
lowing statutory provision: “ If the employee so requests, the em
ployer shall tender him one change of physicians and shall nominate
at least three practicing physicians competent to treat the particular
** C o lo r a d o , C o n n e c t ic u t , H a w a i i, I d a h o , I llin o is , I n d i a n a , K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M a in e , M a r y la n d , M in n e
s o t a , N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , O k la h o m a , P e n n s y lv a n ia , S o u t h D a k o t a , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , V ir g in ia , a n d
W is c o n s in .
14 C a lifo r n ia , C o n n e c t ic u t , I n d ia n a * K e n t u c k y , M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , O k la h o m a , T e x a s , a n d V ir g in ia .
100
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
case, or as many as may be available if three can not be reasonably
named, from which the employee may choose; the employee shall
also be entitled, in any serious case, upon request, to the services of
a consulting physician to be provided by the employer; all of said
treatment to be at the expense of the employer. If the employee
so requests, the employer must secure certification by the commission
or a commissioner of the competency for the particular case of the
consulting or additional physicians/’ The foregoing provision does
not apply, however, to employers’ establishment hospital funds ap
proved by the commission.
A majority of the medical profession thus far seem to be opposed
or at least apathetic toward the panel system. Quite a number of
State commissioners and members of the medical profession, espe
cially those who have been in close touch with the administration of
compensation laws, have come to the conclusion that some check
upon free choice, exercised either by the employee or employer, is
necessary.
In a paper prepared for the 1918 meeting of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Dr.
Raphael Lewy, chief medical adviser of the New York Industrial
Commission, stated that the ideal plan would be to leave the choice
to the medical department of the industrial commission. A t the
same conference Dr. Charles H. Lemon, of Milwaukee, Wis., stated
that no man is justified in doing major surgical work who has not
been trained under a competent surgeon; while Dr. J. W. Mowell,
chairman of the Washington Medical Aid Board, believed that
there should be free choice in ordinary cases, but that in serious
cases it would be better for the employee to take the advice of an
expert. In a letter to the Bureau, Dr. F. W. Sears, chairman of
the committee on legislation of the Vermont State Medical Society,
stated that physicians should be selected by mutual agreement; the
employer might allow the employee a choice from a list of physicians.1
One of the recommendations of Mr. J. F. Connor, commissioned b y
the governor of New York to investigate the management of the State
industrial commission, provided that “ a panel of phj^sicians be desig
nated by the commission, utilizing the advice of recognized medical
societies, among whom injured workmen may have free choice, with
power conferred on the commission to add to, or to remove from, such
panel at their discretion.”
& The California Industrial Accident Commission found “ by bitter
experience that all physicians qualified by the laws of the State to
practice surgery are not necessarily surgeons.” The commission ad
vocated a traveling medical inspector who wTill “ be able greatly to
diminish tjie abuse, now frequent, of overstay in hospitals, with the
consequent overcharge against the State compensation insurance
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
101
fund.” 15 According to the commission unfit practitioners should be
excluded either through the enforcement' of the medical practice act
or by the commission.
The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal of September 21, 1916,
speaks editorially as follows: “ It may be also that absolute free
choice will eliminate competition between the present 27 insurance
companies and bring about the concentration of all the compensation
business under one insurance company, with whom all would be re
quired to transact business under direct State supervision. There is
a probability that the problem may be solved by the combination of
free choice under a supervising consultant, agreeable to and appointed
by the insurance companies.”
Dr. William L. Estes, chairman of the committee on workmen’s
compensation of the Pennsylvania State Medical Society, in a paper
read before a conference of industrial physicians in Pennsylvania,16
said:
Again, for injuries a surgeon should be called; few family practi
tioners have the requisite skill and experience to meet in the most
modern way the emergencies of a serious surgical condition. The
sufferings and disability of the injured man may be increased and
greatly prolonged by the injudicious selection of a surgeon, * * *
Most of the best modern hospitals have a definite organized staff of
surgeons to can y on the work of the institutions, and the management
of the hospital not only expects but requires them to treat the cases
sent to the institution. Many injured men must go to hospitals. It
would therefore result in serious confusion and disorganization were
it permitted the injured workman to demand that his family phy
sician shall treat him in the hospital. Besides, as stated above, it
ifiight result in placing an inexperienced man in charge of him instead
of a man wiiose qualifications had been proved before he was given
the place on the hospital staff.
Furthermore, under the present system of selection by the em
ployer, it is not an uncommon practice in some States to allow" em
ployees to choose a physician from a panel nominated by the employer
or insurance carrier.
REASONS WHY EMPLOYER SHOULD SELECT PHYSICIAN.
Inasmuch as the burden of paying the medical costs rests upon
the employer, it seems reasonable that he should have a voice in the
selection of the physician. He is naturally interested in reducing
his compensation costs. This reduction depends to some extent
upon the speedy restoration of the injured employee’s earning
capacity, which in turn is dependent largely upon the adequacy of
the medical and surgical treatment furnished. Competent medical
treatment, however, is not always possible if the selection of the
35 R e p o r t o f C a lifo r n ia I n d u s t r ia l A c c i d e n t C o m m is s io n , 1 914-15, p p . 25, 26.
M o n t h l y B u l le t i n o f P e n n s y lv a n ia D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r a n d I n d u s t r y fo r F e b r u a r y , 1917, p p . 51, 52.
102
COMPARISON* OF COMPENSATION" L A W S OF UNITED STATES.
physician is beyond the control of the employerr who is, as a rule,
far more competent than the injured employee to judge of the effi
ciency of the physician. The foreign, non-English speaking, and not
infrequently illiterate workman naturally chooses a physician of
his own nationality, who is often incompetent and sometimes
disreputable. Some physicians attempt to mulct the employ
ers by prolonging treatment, making unnecessary calls, padding
their bills, and overcharging generally, and because of their in
competency are an actual menace to the patients themselves.
Numerous cases are on record in which injuries which should have
had the attention of highly skilled surgeons were treated by physicians
without surgical practice and wholly incompetent. Such treatment
is always costly to the employer and frequently harmful to the
injured workman. As stated by Dr. J. W. Mowell, of the Wash
ington Medical Aid Board, before the meeting of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions pre
viously mentioned: a
While this plan [selection by employee] seems quite equitable and
it appears to be the natural thing to do, it has a good many short
comings. For instance, to the isolated workman who is employed in
a locality where there are only one or two physicians, free choice
means little, and the injured workman has to accept the services of
the first physician he can obtain. However, in the larger cities
where there is a great number of physicians we find that some of the
workmen make a wise choice, while quite a large per cent of them, for
some reason or other, select a physician who is not very well equipped
for the work at hand. We often find that a workman who has
received a serious fracture will select a physician who knows very
little about fractures; also a man who receives an injury to his eygs
may go to an ordinary practitioner for treatment until the serious
nature of the case makes it necessary to transfer him to an eye
specialist, whom he should have consulted in the first instance. This
occurs more or less with reference to all kinds of injuries. * * *
To my mind the principal thing that can be said in favor of free
choice of physician by the injured workman is the effect it has on
his mind—that is, the feeling that he is getting what he wants.
Because of these conditions many employers and insurance car
riers have insisted upon their legal right to select the physician.
Most of the large manufacturing establishments, and even some of the
insurance companies, hare established hospitals in connection with
their plants. It is maintained that more efficient medical service
ean thus be rendered at much less cost. Furthermore, it allows
closer medical supervision. A common complaint made by employers
is that workmen will not report minor injuries, many of which become
septic and develop into serious cases. The prompt attention given
to injuries and the close personal supervision made possible through
a S eo B u l l e t i n 264 o f t li e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , p p . 1 9 7 ,1 9 8 .
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
108
an establishment hospital minimize the danger of blood poisoning
and result in earlier recoveries. It is also maintained that malin
gering can be better controlled and prevented when the employer
has supervision over the medical service furnished.
R E A S O N S W H Y E M P L O Y E E S H O U L D S E L E C T P H Y S IC IA N .
On the other hand, during the last two or three years, there has
been a widespread reaction against the present system of selection
by employers, and it may well be asked, Why this reaction if the
system is as beneficial as is maintained by its advocates? Three
reasons are generally advanced in favor of free choice of physicians
by employees.
In the first place, the free and unhampered choice of one’s own
physician has generally been considered as one of the inalienable
rights of mankind. The relationship existing between a patient and
his physician is private and personal. Furthermore, the thera
peutic value of confidence and faith in one’s physician is well recog
nized by the medical profession, and this confidence naturally is
assured when the injured workman selects his own physician. More
over, the injured man has most at stake. It is he, and not the
employer or physician, who suffers; it is his life which hangs in the
balance. A man desires a doctor whom he knows, with whom he
can freely and unreservedly discuss his ailment, and in whom he has
confidence.
Another factor which has influenced the movement for free choice
has been the dissatisfaction with the kind of medical service fre
quently furnished by employers and insurance carriers. While it is
true that many employers maintain excellent hospitals with highly
skilled surgeons and trained nurses in charge and provide medical
treatment even in excess of statutory requirements, this is by no
means the general practice. The kind of service furnished by
many employers, and particularly b y insurance companies, is entirely
inadequate. There has been a tendency to employ contract doctors
(and this tendency is increasing), many of whom have not been
especially competent. Furthermore, physicians employed on a con
tract basis frequently have more cases than they can take care of
properly and in addition are not inclined to give them the same
personal attention as would be given by physicians engaged directly
by the employee. The evils and abuses of this contract system have
been repeatedly pointed out and condemned by compensation com
missions and the medical profession.
Another important problem is to determine when the injured work
man has sufficiently recovered to be able to return to work. Obvi
ously it is to the employer’s interest to reduce the disability period
as much as possible, and frequently this fact influences unduly the
104
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
decision of the employer’s physician, especially if employed on a
contract basis.
The third factor in the movement for free choice has been the oppo
sition of the medical profession to the medical practices of the employ
ers, and particularly of the insurance companies, which have devel
oped under the compensation laws. Physicians have demanded their
regular rates—those which they had charged before the advent of
workmen’s compensation laws. Insurance companies, on the other
hand, have insisted that the increased security of payments under
compensation and the economic and financial status of the injured
employee should be taken into consideration in determining the
reasonableness of fees for medical and hospital services. There has
also been a tendency on the part of some physicians to pad their bills
and to raise their rates. As might be expected, such a condition imme
diately resulted in numerous and acrimonious disputes, between the
medical profession on the one hand and the employers and insurance
carriers on the other, as to medical fees. The compensation com
missioners were usually able to effect a working compromise, but such
compromises have on the whole been unsatisfactory. Insurance com
panies have refused to pay medical bills unless they were satisfactory,
and physicians in retaliation have threatened to refuse to treat indus
trial cases unless guaranteed their regular rates. As a counter meas
ure employers and insurance carriers have begun to furnish their own
medical service, establishing dispensaries and hospitals and engaging
surgeons and trained nurses. Obviously a continued extension of the
system of establishment hospitals and contract doctors would ulti
mately exclude a large majority of the medical profession from the
field of industrial surgery. It is the evident extension of this practice
that causes apprehension in the ranks of the profession and is the
motive power behind their movement for free choice of physicians.
CONTRACT DOCTORS AND ESTABLISHMENT HOSPITALS.
When State compensation laws were first enacted many of the
larger employers had in operation benefit schemes for the protec
tion of their employees in case of accident or sickness. The com
pensation laws in about one-half of the States permitted these
substitute schemes to continue, provided the benefits furnished
equaled those provided in the compensation acts. Thus, many, if
not most, of the larger employers in the United States at present,
have their own organized medical service and establishment hospitals
with surgeons and nurses in charge.
This is especially true of the far western States w^here the contract
hospital system predominates. In fact, the compensation laws of
M ED ICAL A ^ D SURGICAL SERVICE.
105
seven western States17 specifically authorize employers to make con
tracts with their employees for medical and hospital service.
One criticism against the contract system is that the cost of the
medical benefits under the compensation law— a burden it was
intended for the employer to assume—is shifted to the employees.
Another criticism is the commercialization of the medical service by
nonmedical men. In Washington, for example, the contract plan
has given the State medical aid board considerable trouble because
of such commercialization. These nonmedical men form a hospital
association and then secure the services of a surgeon, pay a small
part of the proceeds to him for the work and keep the remainder.
This has brought about a lot of dissatisfaction among the workmen
and physicians of the State, causing some agitation toward State
hospitals for the care of workmen under the compensation act.
The most potent criticism against contract practice is that
through it injured employees receive inferior service. As already
stated, many employers furnish medical and surgical treatment
of the highest character, but that is not the general custom and is
especially not true in case of many insurance companies. The
California Industrial Accident Commission in its 1916-17 annual
report made the following observation regarding the contract system:18
Many poorly equipped medical men are not above accepting indus
trial cases which they can not handle. The commission feels keenly
its responsibility in this matter, and, of course, desires that the very
best services shall be accorded the injured workingman.
There has been noted in the last fiscal year an ever-increasing
tendency toward “ contract practice” among the insurance companies.
This is a most deplorable condition, since the contracts are fre
quently made with men of poor judgment and some whose only
equipment appears to be a willingness to work for little money.
One great failing in this contract work is that treatment and results
of treatment are seldom subject to comparison or supervision.
There is a tendency toward surgical ‘ ‘ inbreeding, y’ in that a man,
secure in his exclusive care of the cases for an insurance company,
may do pretty much as he pleases as long as he is acceptable to the
company. The result is poor work.
Very often has contract practice brought to this office cases for
inspection by our medical department. These injured men present
themselves for the purpose of satisfying their doubts as to the
results or character of treatment which they have received.
These examinations frequently result in change of doctors or ex
actions of satisfactory treatment by the insurance companies. * * *
Whether the control of the medical practice and the exclusion from
the industrial accident field of the unfit practitioners shall come
through an enforcement of the medical practice act, or whether
through regulations of the industrial accident board specifying the
character of physicians eligible for industrial work is not yet known.
17 C o l o r a d o , I d a h o , M o n t a n a , N e v a d a , N e w M e x i c o , U t a h , a n d W a s h i n g t o n .
R e p o r t o f C a lifo r n ia I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t C o m m i s s i o n , 1916-17, p p . 2 1 ,2 2 .
106
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
The situation constitutes a distinct menace at the present time, an
suggests possible failure of the good effects of a most excellent law.
“ There are a great many good men,” said Dr. B. P. Magnuson,
medical director of the Illinois Industrial Commission, before the
fifth I. A. I. A. B. C. conference,19 “ who have started as contract sur
geons, simply as a stepping stone to work up, but those men leave it,
because they can’t get adequate compensation for their work from the
corporation. The contract surgeon, therefore^ has fallen into disre
pute, because, on the average, he doesn't measure up to men in civil
practice who are doing the best kind of surgery. * * * The con
tract surgeon is often careless; he gets a biased view. The claim
agent bothers the life out of him to get a man back to work.”
MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL FEES,
Probably no one phase of workmen’s compensation has caused
more vexation to commissions or created more ill feeling among
the medical profession than the question of medical and hospital fees.
Basis for ?nedieal fees ,—Prior to the enactment of workmen’s
compensation laws there had been little distinction in the treatment
of injuries which arose out of the employment and those which arose
outside of the employment. In either case the person sustaining the
injury was financially responsible for the medical and hospital
treatment furnished, but since a large proportion of such persons
were unable to pay for the treatment received the hospitals and
physicians accepted them as charity patients, usually charging low
rates and collecting fees only in eases where the patient could afford
to pay. The compensation laws, however, definitely placed upon
the employer the burden of furnishing medical services in industrial
accident cases; but no provision was made as to medical fees, except
that they should be reasonable, and, in 18 States,20 that they should
be limited to such charges as prevail in the same community for simi
lar treatment of injured persons of a like standard of living when
treatment is paid for by the injured persons. In view of these facts
the medical profession as a whole maintained that medical services in
industrial cases should be remunerated at full value and that such
cut rates and charity as had been granted the sufferers by hospitals
and doctors should be discontinued. They also believed it to be an
injustice to expect the medical profession to adopt a sliding scale
of fees, governed by their clients’ ability to pay, when other institu
tions and businesses, including the very same employers and insur
ance companies, are not subjected to the same principles and prac
tices.
13
B u l le t i n N o . 264, P r o c e e d in g s o f t h e f i f t h a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e I n t e r n a t io n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d u s t r ia l
A c c i d e n t B o a r d s a n d C o m m is s io n s , h e l d a t M a d is o n , W i s . , S e p t . 2 4 -2 7 ,1 9 1 8 , p p . 142, 143.
20 A l a b a m a , C o n n e c t ic u t , H a w a i i, I d a h o , I n d i a n a , K e n t u c k y ^ L o u is ia n a , M a r y l a n d , M in n e s o t a , M is s o u r i,
N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , O k l a h o m a , P e n n s y lv a n ia , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , V e r m o n t , a n d V ir g in i a .
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
107
Obviously, the medical profession, in common with other profes
sions and vocations, should receive a just and adequate remunera
tion for its services. The ordinary fee rates of physicians are prob
ably determined in a general way with reference to the paying ability
of the moderately well-to-do classes of society. Undoubtedly they
are also influenced by the fact that much of the medical services ren
dered the poorer classes will never be paid for. In view of these facts
what would be a just basis for determining reasonable and equitable
fees for medical services? As already stated, 18 laws provide that
the standards prevailing in the community for treatment of persons
having the same standard of living should be taken into consideration.
Three States (Idaho, Kentucky, and Texas) further provide that the
increased security of payment guaranteed by a workmen’s compen
sation law should also be taken into account. Practically all of the
State commissions do consider these factors in determining the rea
sonableness of medical fees.
Fee schedules.—The ultimate determination of the reasonableness
of medical fees in workmen’s compensation cases lies with the admin
istrative commissions and courts.
In 28 States 21 the compensation commissions or courts are specifi
cally authorized to approve, regulate, or fix the amount of medical
and hospital fees. The laws of two States (Colorado and Washington)
authorize the commission to issue a table or schedule of fees which
shall serve as a basis for compensating medical services rendered.
Moreover, medical fee schedules have been put into effect, under
general authority to regulate or approve medical fees, by the com
pensation commissions of the following States: California, Maryland,
Nevada, Oh^o, Oregon, Washington, aiid Wes t Virginia. In passing, it
may be noted that all of these States have either exclusive or com
petitive State insurance funds. Also, the Massachusetts and New York
compensation commissions, in approving medical fees, have been
governed by a medical and a hospital fee schedule formulated in
cooperation with the medical profession, hospitals, and insurance
companies of the State. In New York, however, the State medical
society later repudiated the fee bill because the insurance companies
interpreted it as “ a maximum fee bill, not as a minimum fee bill.” 22
In addition to the foregoing official schedules promulgated by the
State compensation commissions, medical fee schedules have been
adopted quite extensively by insurance companies, by many county
medical societies, and by a few State medical societies. There is a
fundamental difference, however, between the schedules adopted by
21 C a lifo r n ia , C o l o r a d o , C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , H a w a i i, K a n s a s , I d a h o , I ll in o i s , I n d i a n a , K e n t u c k y ,
L o u is ia n a , M a in e , M a r y l a n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M ic h ig a n , M i n n e s o t a , M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , O h io ,
O k l a h o m a , R h o d e I s l a n d , S o u t h D a k o t a , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , U t a h , V i r g in i a , a n d W is c o n s in .
22 Q u o t e d f r o m A m e r ic a n M e d ic a l A s s o c i a t i o n B u l le t i n o f M a y 1 5 ,1 9 1 5 , p . 388, b y D r . I . M . R u b i u o w
i n J u ly , 1917, is s u e o f t h e J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l E c o n o m y , p . 717.
108
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
the medical societies and those adopted by the insurance companies.
The former are generally minimum fee schedules, whereas the latter
are maximum schedules. Moreover, the medical societies have
difficulty in maintaining strict adherence to their schedules on the
part of the members of the profession; on the other hand, relatively
few of the experienced physicians and surgeons will sign the schedules
of the insurance companies.
The rates contained in the fee schedules adopted by the several
States enumerated above are somewhat lower than the regular
rates of the profession. In many of the States the rates approved
vary between different communities, depending upon the prevailing
rates in the locality. In Massachusetts, for example, the guideposts by which the industrial accident board determined the reason
ableness of fees were (1) the locality in which the doctor practices,
(2) the nature of the complaint, (3) the ability of the man to pay,
and (4) the standing of the practitioner in his profession.23 In Ohio,
however, the amount of medical fees was determined with a view
to impartiality and uniformity. Said the Ohio Industrial Com
mission in this connection:
We can not consider and maintain this impartiality and uniformity,
of which we speak, if, as has been suggested by some physicians, we
consider that the same services demand different fees from different
localities, in industrial accident work. It is to be remembered that
this act contemplates the considering of this whole subject on an
industrial accident basis. This is an industrial accident law, based
on industrial conditions, and the lack of appreciation of this very
fact is the one great reason why there is difficulty regarding the
medical aid feature. The medical aid compensation is charged to
the employer on an industrial accident basis. The act contemplates
the payment of reasonable compensation to the injured and reason
able compensation for medical attention.24
Because of the great variations in kind and amount of treatment
required even for similar and apparently identical injuries, it is
impossible to determine in advance what would be a reasonable fee
for a particular injury. Consequently a medical fee schedule is
commonly used merely as a guide or as a minimum fee table.
Because of the medical fee question, workmen's compensation laws
have been the subject of considerable objection and adverse criticism
by a part of the medical profession. Usually this criticism is of
two kinds: (1) That directed against the law and its administration,
and (2) that directed against the unfair and unreasonable practices
of certain employers and insurance carriers. The first kind is heard
most when a compensation law is first put into effect and is due
28 F ir s t a n im a l r e p o r t o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n d u s t r ia l A c c i d e n t B o a r d , 1 912-13, p . 56.
24 O h io I n d u s t r ia l C o m m is s io n B u l le t i n , O c t . 1 ,1 9 1 4 , p p . 1 4 , 15.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
109
primarily to the physicians’ unfamiliarity with the law and with the
duties and functions of the compensation commission. The loudest
criticisms, too, generally come from those 'physicians who do not
stand highest in the profession. The large majority of the profession
have cheerfully cooperated with the commissions in the adminis
tration of the laws in the interest of the working classes for whose
benefit such laws were enacted, and it is seldom, indeed, that a
compensation commission has had difficulty with the higher class
physician and surgeon. The second criticism is usually the result
of certain practices on the part of employers and insurance carriers
which are considered unfair to the medical profession and inimical
to the best interest of the injured workmen.
The following extracts from a report made by the Massachusetts
medical advisory committee to the physicians of the State probably
epitomize the general experience under compensation laws in the
United States:
A small proportion of these [insurance] companies have adjusters
and other subordinates who are at times inclined to play cheaper
games than proper. There has been a tendency on the part of some
physicians, not many of them members of our societies, but still
physicians ostensibly respectable, to pad their bills and raise their
rates; in other words, to treat this law as an opportunity for medical
graft. In many of these matters the medical advisory board has
been able to help the industrial board toward a solution. * * * *
It seems to us that the whole intent of the law is not charity, but
rather to lift the injured workmen out of the pauper class and, at
least for the fortnight following the injury, to furnish them with the
best care, to give them the best possible chance for complete and
early recovery and return to working power. Some of the insur
ance men regard the whole matter, seemingly, as a partially charitable
service, and argue that as cut rates and charity were granted the
sufferers by doctors and hospitals before this act went into effect,
therefore this sort of thing should continue. * * *
Here and there insurance companies, usually the unimportant ones,
have shown a desire to press the advantage given them by the phrase
of the current law. In the main, however, the better companies
* * * have shown themselves decent and reasonable, not inclined
to overwork a technical advantage.25
Hospital fees .—The problem of determining the reasonableness of
medical fees is further complicated when the injured man is sent to
the hospital. The added difficulty arises from the fact that hos
pitals are in part charitable institutions and supported by donations
of public-spirited citizens. Hospitals usually have three classes of
service—public wards, semiprivate rooms, and private rooms. The
public wards are maintained, at nominal prices, frequently less than
actual cost, for patients who have limited means, among whom are in
cluded most of the industrial workers. Moreover, in ease of public ward
26 Baston Medical and Surgical Journal, Sept. 18,1913, p. 444.
110
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF CANADA.
patients, no charge is made for the attending physician or surgeon.
For the other classes of service the rates are not only much higher,
but fees for attending physicians and surgeons must be paid in addi
tion. The question immediately arises, Should injured employees
be placed in public wards, as they probably would have been before
the enactment of compensation laws, or should they be placed in
semiprivate or private rooms ? If the former practice is followed the
employers and insurance companies are benefited at the expense of
the physicians and hospitals; whereas, if the latter plan is adopted,
the remuneration received b y the medical profession would not be
in accord with the compensation acts, which provide that medical
fees should “ be limited to such charges as prevail in the same com
munity for similar treatment of injured persons of a like standard of
living when such treatment is paid for by the injured persons” ; and
consequently employers and insurance carriers would be required to
pay more than was intended by the law. The insurance companies
maintain that were the injured workman to pay for his own medical
and hospital bills he would in most cases be sent to a public ward,
and physicians would graduate their charges according to the patient’s
income and ability to pay.
On the other hand, the hospitals maintain that they should not be
asked to treat compensation cases at a loss. The practice among
hospitals varies. Some place compensation cases in public wards,
some in semiprivate rooms, and others maintain a “ compensation
ward” at intermediate rates. The practice of doctors in sending
patients to hospitals also varies. The majority, howTever, recom
mend that patients be placed in semiprivate wards, thus entitling
them, according to the rules of the profession, to charge for their
services in hospital cases.
EFFECT OF COMPENSATION LAWS UPON INCOME OF PHYSICIANS.
i t is the consensus of compensation commissions and many physi
cians who have investigated the matter that workmen’s compensation
laws have increased rather than diminished the income of the medical
profession, and this despite the fact that the rates in industrial acci
dent cases have been somewhat reduced. Certainly the effect has
not been detrimental in a pecuniary way. The lower schedule of
fees has been counterbalanced by certainty of payments. “ It is of
great interest to physicians to remember,” says the Ohio Industrial
Commission, “ that in the past, in from 50 to 75 per cent of the cases
taken in aggregate, no pay was received for medical service ren
dered.” 26 Several investigations of the effect of compensation laws
upon the income of physicians have been made by members of the
profession. Dr. F. T. Rogers, former editor of the Providence
26 B u l l e t i n o f O h io I n d u s t r ia l C o m m i s s i o n , O c t . 1 ,1 9 1 4 , p . 4.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE.
I ll
Medical Journal, as a result of a questionnaire sent to the doctors of
the State of Rhode Island, found that in about one-half of the cases
in which replies were received there was no appreciable change in
income; in about one-quarter there was an increase in the income;
while in the other quarter there was a decrease in income. Summing
up, Dr. Rogers said: “ An act which affects but 13 per cent of the
profession27 unfavorably can not be a serious menace to our inter
ests.” 28 Dr. William L. Estes, as a result of a questionnaire sent to
the physicians of Pennsylvania, said: “ It is evident, therefore, that a
majority of the physicians of the State believe the law a good one>
and is working efficiently for the good of the workingman, and not
to the detriment of the physicians.” 29 Dr. Sears in a letter to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that in his judgment the Vermont
compensation law has somewiiat increased the remuneration of the
medical profession. “ It is probable/7 says the Wisconsin Industrial
Commission,30 ‘ ‘that the compensation act has very greatly increased
the income of the medical profession as a whole.” The medical
advisory committee of Massachusetts stated as its opinion that the
compensation law “ has worked out well so far—for a new law— and
that on the whole the medical profession has lost nothing by it.” 31
ADMINISTRATION—MEDICAL ADVISERS.
All except l l 32 of the 45 workmen’s compensation States have in
dustrial accident boards or commissions to administer the compensa
tion acts. The numerous technical medical questions involved and the
constant need for medical advice have led to the appointment of
medical advisers or directors in 13 States 33 and the Federal Govern
ment to assist the commissions in administering the medical pro
visions of the acts. The recent Missouri lav/ also provides for the
appointment of a medical adviser.
The duties and functions of these medical advisers generally include
the following: (1) To examine claimants; (2) to be witness or give
counsel at hearings; (3) to make medical reports on cases; (4) to be
present at conferences of physicians examining claimants; (5) to make
arrangements for specialists’ examinations; (6) to select impartial
physicians for examinations of claimants; (7) to pass upon the reason
ableness of medical and hospital fees; and (8) to rate permanent
disabilities.
27 T h a t Is , 13 p e r c e n t o f t h o s e t o w h o m t h e q u e s t io n n a i r e w a s s e n t .
28 P r o v id e n c e M e d ic a l J o u r n a l fo r M a r c h , 1915.
29 M o n t h l y B u l le t i n o f P e n n s y lv a n ia D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r a n d I n d u s t r y fo r F e b r u a r y , 1917, p . 48.
30 F o u r t h a n n u a l r e p o r t o f t h e W i s c o n s i n I n d u s t r ia l C o m m i s s i o n , 1 914-15, p . 4.
si B o s t o n M e d ic a l a n d S u r g ic a l J o u r n a l, S e p t . 1 8 ,1 9 1 3 , p . 444.
s2 A l a b a m a , A la s k a , A r iz o n a , K a n s a s , L o u is ia n a , M in n e s o t a , N e v / H a m p s h ir e , N e w M e x i c o , R h o d e
Is la n d , T e n n e sse e , a n d W y o m in g .
33 C a lifo r n ia , I ll in o i s , I o w a , K e n t u c k y , M a r y la n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , N e v a d a , N e v / Y o r k , O h io , O k la h o m a ,
O r e g o n , W a s h i n g t o n , a n d W e s t V ir g in ia .
112
CO M PARISON OF CO M P E N SA TIO N L A W S OF U N IT E D STATES.
ADMINISTRATION BY LOCAL BOARDS IN WASHINGTON.
A notable experiment in the field of medical administration was
put into effect in the State of Washington in 1917. The Washington
act provides for a State medical aid board composed of the medical
adviser of the industrial commission and one representative each
of the employers and employees. This board is authorized to divide
the industries of the State into five classes, according to hazard.
Employers subject to the act are assessed from 1 to 3 cents for. each
working day of each employee, to be paid to the State medical fund
once a month. Deductions from the employees’ wages of one-half
of the assessments are authorized by law. The State board is also
authorized to promulgate rules, issue a maximum medical fee bill,
approve physicians’ and hospital bills, and approve contracts be
tween employers and employees as to hospital benefit funds.
The act also provides for the establishment of local medical aid
boards for the actual administration of the medical service. Each of
these boards, composed of one representative each of the employers
and employees, must provide care and treatment for the injured, ’
report the beginning and termination of disability and the cause of
the injury, and also certify the medical bills. In case of disagreement
the local boards shall appeal to the State medical board.
One of the most difficult problems the State board was called upon
to solve concerned the appointment and functioning of the local med
ical aid boards.34 The framers of the law evidently intended that
there should be a local board at each plant. Such local boards were
workable in the larger plants but were utterly impracticable in the
case of the smaller employers. The board, therefore, divided the
State into districts and established a local board in each locality
w^here a physician resides. The larger cities were divided on an
industrial basis, six such districts being established in Seattle, and
five each in Tacoma and Spokane. The State board experienced great
difficulty in having the local boards appointed. The employers as a
rule refused to serve on the board because they could not spare the
time from their business and since the law allowed only $3 a day the
workmen did not want to give up good-paying jobs to attend to
local board work.
This situation was remedied by a 1919 amendment (ch. 130) to the
workmen’s compensation law. The act now provides for the creation
of three local aid districts (one each in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane).
In each district there shall be a local aid board to consist of two mem
bers who are to be appointed by the newly created State safety board.
Each member of a local aid board shall receive a salary of $300 a
month. Their duties are enlarged to include accident prevention
work.
M R e p o r t o f W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e I n d u s t r ia l I n s u r a n c e D e p a r t m e n t fo r 1917, p p . 5 4 -5 6 .
TIM E FOR NOTICE AND CLAIM .
113
TIME FOR NOTICE AND CLAIM.
Limitations are placed on the time for giving notice and for mak
ing claims under the acts, notice usually being required within from
5 to 30 da^s, and a claim within from 3 months to 2 years. A num
ber of laws contain the provision that no notice is necessary where
the employer has other knowledge of the fact or where the accident
was a fatal one. The time set may also be extended if it is shown
that th« employer was not prejudiced, but if prejudiced the liability
will be reduced only to the extent of such prejudice. Many laws
also provide that no defect in the notice shall be a bar to proceedings
or recovery. As a matter of practice, the commissions construe
this provision quite liberally; nor is the strict adherence to the
technicality of the law always insisted upon by the employers and in
surers if the injury actually occurred and their liability therefor is
unquestioned. On the other hand, it is necessary to protect the em
ployer from false claims made by employees a considerable period
of time subsequent to the alleged injury. It would be difficult for
an employer to disprove several weeks or months after the occurrence
of an injury that it arose out of the employment if he had no knowledge
of its occurrence and no report of it had been made. Then, too,
the employer should have immediate knowledge of the injury in
order that he may furnish competent medical and surgical treat
ment so as to minimize the result of the injury and to secure as
early a recovery as possible. Several States have recently amended
their compensation acts, requiring employees to report immediately
all injuries to their employers.
Claims for compensation, as already noted, must be made within
3 months to 2 years. In 6 States 35 claims must be made within 3
months; in 12 States 36 within 6 months; in 20 States37 and the
Federal Government within 1 year; and in 4 States 38 within 2 years.
The Wyoming law makes no provision in this respect, while in Utah
the time is fixed by the commission. In New Mexico claim must be
made within 2 months after the refusal of the employer to pay
compensation except that in fatal cases the limit is 1 year. A short
time limit for the presentation of claims works an injustice where
the disability does not develop until a considerable period after the
date of the accident.
H a w a i i, I o w a , M a r y la n d , N e v a d a (1 y e a r i n ca se o f d e a t h ) , O r e g o n (1 y e a r i n ca se o f d e a t h ) , a n d P o r t o
R ico .
36 C a lifo r n ia (1 y e a r i n ca se o f d e a t h ) , I ll in o i s , K a n s a s , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M ic h i g a n , M is s o u r i, M o n t a n a ,
N e w H a m p s h ir e , N o r t h D a k o t a (1 y e a r i f r e a s o n a b le c a u s e is s h o w n ) , T e x a s , V e r m o n t , a n d W e s t V i r g in i a .
37 A l a b a m a , A r iz o n a , C o lo r a d o , C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , I d a h o , K e n t u c k y , L o u is ia n a , M a in e , M in n e s o t a ,
N e b r a s k a , N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y o r k , O k l a h o m a , P e n n s y lv a n ia , R h o d e I s l a n d , S o u t h D a k o t a , V i r g in i a ,
T e n n essee, a n d W a s h in g to n .
38 A la s k a , I n d i a n a , O h io , a n d W i s c o n s in .
172308°—20—Bull. 275------ 8
114
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS.
The three most important factors in a compensation act are its
scope, compensation benefits, and administrative system—in other
words, who should receive compensation, how much should he receive,
and does he actually receive it, and if b o , when. The first two are
fixed by law, subject, of course, to the interpretation of commission
and court; but some responsible administrative body is necessary to
insure to the injured workman his rights under the law, and to see
that he receives the full amount of his compensation immediately
and regularly. As to administration, there are two general types of
compensation acts— the commission or board type, of which there
are 34,30 and the self-administrative or court type, of which there are
ll
. 40
In the commission type, a special board, usually of three or five
members,41 is appointed to enforce the law, including usually the
administration of the State insurance fund, if such a fund is created.
The commission is granted extensive powers and quasi-judicial func
tions. It receives accident reports, investigates claims, settles dis
putes, hears cases, grants awards, issues decrees, and, in case of a
State fund, classifies industries, fixes and collects premiums, and
pays compensation. In some States it has the additional function
of accident prevention, while in a few States 42 it administers the
entire body of labor laws. There seems to be a tendency among
States to consolidate the separate agencies authorized to enforce the
various labor laws into one body called an industrial commission.
Several States43 in recent years have created such commissions,
thereby abolishing all existing agencies.
In the court type of law the amount of compensation and other
questions at issue are settled directly by the employer or insurer and
the injured employee. In cases of dispute the matter may be referred
to an arbitration committee, and eventually taken to the courts. In
some of these States, however, there exists a certain amount of loose
supervision by one or more State agencies. For example, in Ala
bama the director of the department of archives and history, who is
ex officio compensation commissioner, shall receive accident reports
and settlements, prepare blank forms, and compile statistics on the
30
C a lifo r n ia , C o l o r a d o , C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , H a w a i i, I d a h o , I ll in o i s , I n d i a n a , I o w a , K e n t u c k y , M a in e ,
M a r y l a n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M i c h i g a n , M is s o u r i, M o n t a n a , N e b r a s k a , N e v a d a , N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y o r k ,
N o r t h D a k o t a , O h io , O k l a h o m a , O r e g o n , P e n n s y lv a n ia , P o r t o R i c o , S o u t h D a k o t a , T e x a s , U t a h , V e r m o n t ,
V ir g in i a , W a s h i n g t o n , W e s t V i r g in i a , a n d W i s c o n s in .
A l a b a m a A l a s k a , A r iz o n a ,
K a n s a s , L o u is ia n a , M i n n e s o t a , N e w H a m p s h ir e , N e w M e x i c o , R h o d e
I s la n d , T e n n e s s e e , a n d W y o m in g .
« A s in g le c o m m i s s i o n e r i n I o w a , N e b r a s k a , S o u t h D a k o t a , V e r m o n t , a n d W e s t V i r g in i a .
42 I n d i a n a , N e w Y o r k , O h io , U t a h , V e r m o n t , a n d W i s c o n s in .
43 I n d i a n a , N e w Y o r k , O h io , U t a h , a n d W is c o n s in . A l s o o f s i m il a r t y p e a re C a lifo r n ia , C o l o r a d o , a n d
M on ta n a .
A D M IN IST R A TIV E SY STEM S.
115
operation of the act; in Alaska, rejections of the act are filed with the
United States commissioner; in Arizona, in case the parties do not
agree, reference may be had to the attorney general; in Kansas, dis
putes are settled by local committees or arbitrators selected either by
the parties in interest or by the court; in Minnesota, notices and settle
ments are filed with the commissioner of labor, who shall advise the
employee of his rights and assist in adjusting disputes; in New
Hampshire, acceptances and proof of financial solvency are filed with
the commissioner of labor; in Rhode Island, acceptances, accident
reports, and proof of financial solvency are filed with the commis
sioner of industrial statistics; in Tennessee the bureau of work
shops and factory inspection receives notices of rejection of the act,
accident reports, settlements, and releases; w^hile in Wyoming, the
State treasurer supervises the State fund and county assessors are
required to report lists of extrahazardous employments to the
treasurer, who shall compile accident statistics.
Two variations from the standard compensation commission type
of administration are (1) the system in Hawaii, which provides for
an industrial accident board in each county, and (2) the district
system of Connecticut. In the latter State the administration of the
act is vested, not in a central board, but in five separate commis
sioners, each supreme in his own district, which coincides with a
congressional district of the State. Each commissioner maintains an
office at some central point, generally the largest industrial city in the
district. The five commissioners, acting as a board, make rules, pre
scribe forms, issue bulletins, etc.; but as regards the interpretation
and administration of the act, each commissioner is supreme and
independent in his own district. Although conflicting decisions have
been made, a satisfactory uniformity in rulings and practices seems
to be maintained by means of frequent conferences and the use of
each other's awards. This district system is defended on the ground
that it permits closer supervision of compensation cases and expe
dites settlements, and that the close personal relationship between
the commissioner and the parties in interest makes possible a feeling
of mutual confidence. On the other hand, it is maintained that a
single commissioner is more easily subject to undue influences and
affected by personal considerations.
The great predominance of the commission type of law seems abun
dantly warranted from the experience that has developed under the
various methods. The need of authoritative agencies to administer
compensation laws is sufficiently demonstrated in those States which
do not possess them. The average non-English-speaking foreign
workman is generally unfamiliar with his rights under the law and
does not know what action to take in case of injury. Complaint, too,
116
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
is frequent that the fear of discharge acts as an effective deterrent in
demanding compensation.
The experience of New Jersey under court administration proved
conclusively that thousands of compensable accidents are insuffi
ciently compensated or not compensated at all. A comparison of
accident statistics of New Jersey with those of Massachusetts is very
illuminating. Both States require all employers to report their acci
dents. In Massachusetts during the year 1916 there were reported
28,060 accidents resulting in death or in disability of two weeks or
longer, whereas in New Jersey, which has 78 per cent as many em
ployees as Massachusetts, only 8,611 such accidents were reported.
Inasmuch as the industries of New Jersey are fully as hazardous as
those of Massachusetts they should produce proportionately the same
number of accidents. The probable number of accidents in New
Jersey in 1916, therefore, was 21,887, not 8,611, as reported. In
other words, 13,276, or over 60 per cent, of New Jersey’s compensable
accidents were not reported and presumably were not compensated.
SETTLEMENT OF COMPENSATION CASES.
The settlement of disputes is one of the principal administrative
functions of a compensation commission or board, and consumes most
of its time and energy. The speedy settlement of cases and the im
mediate and regular payment of benefits depend in a great measure
upon the efficiency of the commission, which in turn is affected by the
method of organization. It is important, therefore, to examine the
methods provided in the various laws for hearing and settling com
pensation cases and disputes. Much of the administrative routine,
such as examining accident reports, investigating claims, and checking
up voluntary agreements and settlements, may be delegated to subor
dinates. On the other hand, a large proportion of the work, such as
hearing and deciding cases and granting commutations, is quasi
judicial in character and can not ordinarily be so delegated; in fact,
the hearing of cases by the commissioners, either individually or
collectively, frequently takes up so much time that little opportunity
is afforded for constructive work, such as accident prevention, restor
ing the maximum earning capacity of injured workmen, and fitting
them to their new and changed economic environment. In fact, in
many cases, compensation commissioners are merely highly paid
claim agents. The settlement of compensation cases, in the first
instance, therefore, by methods which insure both justice and expe
dition in the settlement of claims is of utmost importance.
The most common system devised for this purpose is the settlement
of cases directly by the parties in interest through the medium of
direct settlements or voluntary agreements. These voluntary agree
SETTLEM ENT OF COMPENSATION CASES.
117
ments are later reviewed by the commission and if found to conform
with the provisions of the act are approved. Approximately 75 to
95 per cent of industrial accidents are settled in this way. In other
States, especially those having State funds, the injured workman files
a claim with the commission. This claim is examined and if found
legitimate is approved and payment ordered. The principal argu
ment in favor of direct settlements is that it expedites procedure and
insures more prompt payments. It is held that a majority of in
juries involve no dispute and substantial justice is insured through
the direct settlement plan. The argument against direct settlements
is predicated upon the claim that injured employees are not always
familiar with their compensation rights, that they can not cope suc
cessfully with a trained insurance adjuster, and that in demanding
compensation from their employer they are laboring under constraint.
The fear of antagonizing their employer, it is held, effectively inhibits
injured workers from insisting upon their rights. The recent inves
tigation of the operation of the direct settlement system in New
Y o r k 44 made by Mr. J. F. Connor showed that of 1,000 unselected
cases 114 were underpaid. This underpayment amounted to
$52,279.84, or $459 per case. The total underpayments, on the basis
of the 1,000 cases, would amount to $1,400,000 annually.
In case the parties can not agree the compensation claim may be
settled in one or more of several ways. In the 11 noncommission
States, disputed cases usually go to the inferior courts for adjudica
tion, although Arizona and Kansas provide for arbitration committees
appointed either by the interested parties or by the court; Arizona
also provides for reference to the attorney general; and Minnesota
authorizes the department of labor to attempt to settle the matter.
In the 34 commission States disputed cases may go either directly to
the commission for adjudication or they may be first heard before a
subordinate tribunal, usually appointed, in part at least, by the com
mission. These preliminary tribunals may be either arbitration
committees, referees, or individual members of the commission.
The findings of fact and decisions of all such preliminary tribunals
Right of
appeal from the commission’s rulings to the courts is generally pro
vided for, but a number of States limit this right to questions of law
only.
Another method of settling disputes, not originally provided
for in law but developed through experience, is the informal con
ference. The parties in interest are requested to appear before a
member or representative of the commission. The points in dis
are, of course, subject to review by the full commission.
44
R e p o r t o f in v e s t i g a t i o n b y J e r e m ia h F . C o n n o r , a s c o m m i s s i o n e r u n d e r s e c t io n 8 o f t h e e x e c u t i v e
l a w , k n o w n a s t h e M o r e la n d A c t , i n r e la t io n t o t h e m a n a g e m e n t a n d a ffa ir s o f t h e S t a t e I n d u s t r ia l c o m
m is s io n .
S u b m it t e d t o t h e g o v e r n o r , N o v . 1 7 ,1 9 1 9 .
118
CO M PARISON OF C O M P E N SA TIO N L A W S OF U N IT E D STATES.
pute are considered and in a large proportion of cases the matter is
satisfactorily settled. This method not only expedites procedure
by eliminating the time and expense of formal hearings, but also pro
motes amicable relationships between the parties and helps to estab
lish a feeling of confidence.
REVISION OF BENEFITS.
^
It frequently happens, after an agreement has been drawn up or
an award has been made, that the incapacity of the injured workman
or the measure of dependency has been changed, necessitating a modi
fication of benefits in conformity with changed conditions. Prac
tically all of the States provide for revision of benefits under certain
circumstances if conditions warrant. As a rule a review may be
had upon application of either party or upon the commission’s own
motion. Usually a time limit is set after which no review will be
allowed, although a number of States provide that an award may be
modified at any time if circumstances justify a change. In some
States, however, lump-sum settlements, when once made, are final
and not subject to review or modification.
NONRESIDENT ALIEN DEPENDENTS.
One of the matters of regret, and perhaps the only one, in chang
ing from the old liability system, is the reopening of the question
of the status of nonresident beneficiaries of aliens who lose their
lives in employment in this country. After a long series of adjudi
cations and legislative action the position had been reached of equal
treatment before the law of the dependents and personal repre
sentatives of all persons employed, without reference to their citizen
ship status. Comparatively recent legislation in Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin has made the liability acts of these States available
for the benefit of nonresident alien claimants, thus reversing the
adverse rulings of the courts on this subject in these two States,
which were the principal remaining strongholds of the harsh doc
trine excluding them.
The question of the rights of aliens to accident compensation be
came of especial importance when the United States declared war
against Austria-Hungary and particularly after the enactment of
the Trading with the Enemy Act. A large proportion of the workers
in some of our basic industries, especially coal mining and iron and
steel manufacturing, were subjects of Austria-Hungary, and there
fore enemy aliens.
The provisions as to the status of nonresident alien beneficiaries
in the 45 compensation laws can be seen from the following table:
119
NONRESIDENT ALIEN DEPENDENTS.
T a b le
3 2 .— P R O V IS IO N S
OF
C O M P E N S A T IO N
LAW S
AS
TO
N O N R E S ID E N T
A L IE N
DEPENDEN TS.
N o p r o v is i o n .
( 6)
E x c lu d e d .
( 5)
In clu d e d .
(3 !)
L i m i t a t i o n s : O n l y e n u m e r a t e d d e p e n d e n t s in c lu d e d .
A l a b a m a ............
A l a s k a 1 ..............
C a li fo r n ia 1 ____
C o l o r a d o ............
C o n n e c t ic u t ...
D e la w a r e ........ :
O n e -t h ir d b e n e fit s , n o t o v e r $1,041.66.
O n e -h a ll r a t e s e x c e p t a s t o r e s id e n t s c f C a n a d a o r U n i t e d
S t a te s d e p e n d e n c ie s .
O n e -h a lf b e n e fit s t o d e p e n d e n t w i d o w s a n d c h i ld r e n .
H a w a i i . . . .........
I d a h o ..................
I l l i n o i s 1..............
I n d i a n a 1 ...........
I o w a ....................
K a n s a s , ,. „ ....
K e n t u c k y .........
O n e -h a lf b e n e fit s ; o t h e r h a lf p a i d i n t o in d u s t r ia l a d m in is
t r a t io n fu n d .
$750 m a x i m u m e x c e p t t o r e s id e n t s o f C a n a d a .
H a l f b e n e fit s t o w i d o w o r c h i ld r e n u n d e r 16.
L o u i s i a n a ____
M a in e ..................
M a r v l a n d ..........
H a lf r a t e s e x c e p t t o r e s id e n t s o f Cam ada.
D e p e n d e n t w i d o w s , c h i ld r e n , a n d p a r e n t s . A f t e r o n e
y e a r c o m m is s io n m a y c o m m u t e p a y m e n ts t o th reefo u r t h s v a l u e , m a x i m u m $2,400.
M a s s a c h u s e tts 1
M ic h ig a n ...........
M in n e s o t a .........
M is s o u r i...........
M o n t a n a ............
N e b r a s k a ...........
N e v a d a ..............
H a lf b e n e fit s t o w i d o w o r c h i ld r e n u n d e r 16, u n le s s t r e a t y
p r o v id e s o t h e r w is e .
W i d o w , c h i ld r e n , a n d p a r e n t s . W i t h i n o n e y e a r e m p l o y
e r m a y c o m m u t e p a y m e n t s t o t w o -t h ir d s v a lu e .
60 p e r c e n t o f b e n e fit s .
N ew
H am p
s h ir e .
N e w Jersey
N e w M e x ico
N e w Y o r k ____
W i f e , c h i ld r e n , a n d d e p e n d a n t a s c e n d a n t s . C o m m i s s i o n
m a y c o m m u t e p a y m e n t s t o o n e -h a lf p r e s e n t v a lu e .
N o r th D ak ota
O h i o .....................
O k la h o m a 2
O r e g o n ............
P e n n s y lv a n ia .
W i d o w , w id o w e r , c h ild r e n , a n d p a r e n ts .
T w o -t la ir d s b e n e fit s t o w i d o w a n d c h ild r e n .
P o rto R ico
R h o d e Is la n d 1
S ou th D a k o t a 1
T e n n e s s e e ..........
T e x a s ..................
U t a h i .................
V e r m o n t 1.........
V i r g i n i a . ............ : M a x im u m , $1,00% e x c e p t ta r e s id e n t s o f C a n a d a .
W a s h i n g t o n . . . P a r e n t s o n l y , u n le s s t r e a t y p r o v id e s o t h e r w is e .
W e s t V i r g i n i a . W i d o w , i n v a l i d w id o w e r , c h i ld r e n u n d e r 15, o r o v e r i f
in c a p a c it a t e d .
W i s c o n s in .........
W y o m i n g ......... O n e -t h i r d b e n e fit s t o w i d o w a n d c h i ld r e n u n d e r 16.
1 N o t s p e c i fic a l ly m e n t io n e d i n la w , b u t i n c l u d e d b y c o u r t o r c o m m i s s i o n .
2 F a t a l a c c id e n t s n o t c o v e r e d .
It will be noted that 6 States make no statutory provision for non
resident alien dependents, while in same of the States in the
“ included” column also such alien dependents are not specifically
mentioned in the law but have been included by virtue of the rulings
of the courts or commissions; 5 States exclude them from the benefits
of the act; 1645 include all beneficiaries and provide for full com
pensation; while 18 States46 recognize them but establish limitations
42 A la s k a , C a lifo r n ia , I ll in o i s , I n d i a n a , I o w a , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M ic h ig a n , M in n e s o t a , O h io , R h o d e I s l a n d ,
S o u t h D a k o t a , T e n n e s s e e , T e x a s , U t a h , V e r m o n t , a n d W i s c o n s in .
45
C o lo r a d o , C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , I d a h o , K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M a in e , M a r y la n d , M o n t a n a , N e b r a s k a ,
N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , O r e g o n , P e n n s y lv a n ia , V i r g in i a , W a s h i n g t o n , W e s t V i r g in i a , a n d W y o m i n g .
120
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
either by reducing the amount of benefits payable in cases where the
beneficiaries are nonresidents or by limiting the classes of benefi
ciaries to whom payment may be made, or by doing both. There
may be a plausible justification for a proportionate reduction of
benefits corresponding to the lower cost of living in foreign countries
and possibly for a restriction of the groups of beneficiaries to imme
diate members of the injured employee’s family; but even these re
strictions open the door for injurious discriminations against American
citizens by reason of the fact that injuries to aliens whose possible
beneficiaries are nonresident entail less expense on the employer of
such labor than do injuries to Americans. Several European coun
tries have entered into reciprocal agreements guaranteeing mutual
benefits to each other’s nationals, but such a measure would be with
out practical benefit in this country. Because of its unfairness to
citizen employees the discriminatory treatment of aliens, on the
whole, lacks justification, even though the danger of burdening the
State or municipality with dependent charges is absent.
LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS.
Compensation payments are supposed to be a substitute for wages,
and accordingly every State except three47 provides that such pay
ments shall be made in weekly or monthly installments. The purpose
of small regular payments is to prevent unwise and unnecessary ex
penditures which lump-sum settlements might facilitate. Injured
workmen and especially dependent widows all too frequently squan
der the entire amount of compensation, and in a short time are left
penniless and a burden upon the community. On the other hand,
under certain circumstances the commutation of weekly payments
into a lump sum would be beneficial and desirable. Especially is
this true in case of a permanently disabled workman who wishes to
start a small independent business or who desires to return to his
native country, where cost of living is much cheaper.
The practice of granting commutations, however, unless properly
restricted, opens the way for abuses and injustices. A lump sum
looks large to a workman or his dependents, who are usually willing
to compromise upon an amount much less than that to which they
are legally entitled. Frequently the attorney receives a large por
tion of the lump-sum settlement. And, furthermore, the commis
sions, harassed by their many administrative duties, are at times
inclined to grant lump sums without proper investigation in order that
the case may be settled and closed. The laws of most States there
fore provide that lump-sum payments must be approved by the com
mission or court and must be in the interest of the beneficiary or of
47 A la s k a , P o r t o R i c o , a n d W y o m i n g .
\
121
LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS.
both parties, leaving the question of necessity or justice to the dis
cretion of the administrative body. Some States require that a cer
tain time elapse, usually six months, before commutations may be
granted at all, and in most cases the application for a lump sum must
be made by either or both of the interested parties, although in a
number of States the commission is authorized to grant such commu
tations on its own motion.
Table 33 shows when and under what conditions commutations
may be granted in the several States:
T able
3 3 .— C O N D IT IO N S U N D E R
W H IC H
UNDER
L U M P -S U M
C O M P E N S A T IO N
SETTLEM EN TS A R E
P E R M IT T E D
LAW S.
C o n d it io n s u n d e r w h ic h c o m m u t a t io n s m a y b e m a d e .
S t a te .
A p p l ic a t io n m a d e b y -
A l a b a m a .........
L a p s e o f t im e b e
fo r e c o m m u t a
tio n ca n b e
g ra n te d .
M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t .............
C o u rt a p p r o v a l n ecessa ry in d e a th a n d
sev e re in ju r y cases.
A l a s k a ..................
A r i z o n a ................
C a li fo r n ia ............
M o t i o n o f c o u r t ....................
E ith e r p a r ty or c o m m is
s i o n ’ s m o t io n .
C o l o r a d o .............. M o t i o n o f c o m m i s s i o n . . .
C o n n e c t ic u t ____ M o t i o n o f c o m m i s s i o n e r .
E i t h e r p a r t y .........................
D e la w a r e
......... d o .........................................
H a w a ii
......... d o .........................................
Id a h o
B e s t in t e r e s t o f w o r k m a n .
B e s t i n t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s .
6 m o n t h s ....................
......... d o .........................................
6 m o n th s in to ta l
I n d i a n a ................
E ith e r p a r ty o r b o a r d ’s
6 m o n t h s ; any
I o w a ____
m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y o f
m in o r s .
E i t h e r p a r t y .........................
I ll in o i s
d i s a b i l i t y ca s e s .
M in n e s o t a ..
E m p lo y e e , i f s e c u r i t y is
6 m o n t h s ..
d o u b tfu l.
E i t h e r p a r t y ......................... .........d o .........
M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t .............
E i t h e r p a r t y ......................... 6 m o n t h s . .
M o tio n o f c o m m is s io n . . .
M u tu a l a g re e m e n t; or
6 m o n t h s ; any
t i m e i n ca s e o f
board’s
m o t io n , in
ca se o f p e r m a n e n t d i s
m in o r s .
a b i l i t y o f m in o r s .
M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t ; 6 m o n t h s ....................
b o a r d m a y g ra n t c o m
m u ta tio n .
M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t .............
M i s s o u r i...
M on ta n a ..
N e b r a s k a ..
E i t h e r p a r t y ..............
B e n e f ic i a r y .................
M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t .,
K a n s a s ..
K e n t u c k y .........
L o u i s i a n a .........
M a in e ..................
M a r y l a n d ..........
M a ssa ch u setts.
M ic h ig a n .
N e v a d a ..........
M o t io n o f c o m m i s s i o n .
N e w H a m p s h ir e
N e w J e r s e y ____
N e w M e x i c o ___
E m p l o y e r ..............
E i t h e r p a r t y -----M o t i o n o f c o u r t ..
N ew Y o r k ..
N o r th D a k o t a ..
M o tio n o f c o m m is s io n .
C o m m is s io n ’ s m o t io n ..
O h io .
M o tio n o f c o m m is s io n ..
O t h e r c o n d it io n s .
Ju st or n ecessa ry.
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s .
D o.
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s a t b o a r d ’ s d is c r e
t io n .
I n t e r e s t o f b o t h p a r t ie s ; e it h e r p a r t y m a y
r e je c t b o a r d ’ s a w a rd , e x c e p t in d e a th
o r d i s m e m b e r m e n t ca s e s .
I n u n u s u a l cases.
W h e n p e r io d o f c o m p e n s a t io n c a n b e
d e f in i t e ly d e t e r m in e d .
G ra n ted b y
c o u r t u p o n a p p r o v a l o f co m m is s io n e r.
E m p l o y e r m a y r e d e e m l i a b i l i t y a ft e r 9
m o n th s’ p a y m en t.
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f b e n e fic ia r y .
I n e v e r y ca s e e x c e p t t e m p o r a r y d i s a b i li t y .
I n u n u s u a l ca se s .
B o a r d m a y g r a n t c o m m u t a t io n s a t a n y
t i m e i f s p e c ia l c ir c u m s t a n c e s r e q u ir e .
A n y ca s e e x c e p t d e a t h o r p e r m a n e n t d is
a b ility .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f b e n e fic ia r ie s .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f b e n e fic ia r y . I n d e a t h
a n d p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y ca s e s c o n
sen t o f co u r t n ecessa ry .
N o c o m m u t a t io n s t o w h o l l y d e p e n d e n t
b e n e fic ia r ie s .
I n u n u s u a l ca se s .
C o u r t m a y a u t h o r iz e o r a p p r o v e c o m p r o
m is e o r s e t t l e m e n t s o f c la im s fo r l u m p
su m .
I n in t e r e s t o f ju s t ic e .
D e a t h a n d p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y ca se s
o n l y ; b e s t in t e r e s t o f b e n e fic ia r y . L u m p
s u m t o w i d o w li m i t e d t o 416 w e e k s ’
c o m p e n s a t io n .
U n d e r s p e c ia l c ir c u m s t a n c e s .
122
T able
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES,
3 3 .— C O N D I T I O N S U N D E R W H I C H L U M P - S U M S E T T L E M E N T S A R E
UNDER
C O M P E N S A T IO N
P E R M IT T E D
L A W S — C o n c lu d e d .
C o n d it io n s u n d e r w h ic h c o m m u t a t io n s m a y b e m a d e .
S t a te .
A p p lic a t io n m a d e b y —
O k l a h o m a ...........
P e n n s y lv a n ia . .
P o rto R ico
R h o d e Is la n d ..
L a p se o f tim e b e
fo r e c o m m u ta
tio n ca n be
g ra n ted .
O t h e r c o n d it i o n s .
E i t h e r p a r t y .........................
I n in t e r e s t o f ju s t ic e .
C o m m i s s i o n m a y i n a n y ca se c o m m u t e
o n e -f o u r t h o f v a lu e a n d t h e r e a ft e r re
d u c e p a y m e n t s p r o p o r t io n a t e ly .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s .
E i t h e r p a r t y .........................
6 m o n t h s ..................... B e s t in t e r e s t o f b e n e fic ia r y o r h a r d s h ip
M o t i o n o i c o m m i s s i o n . ..
......... d o .........................................
6 m on th s in tota l
u p o n e m p lo y e r.
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s .
d i s a b i l i t y ca se s .
T e n n e s s e e ............ M u t u a l a g r e e m e n t ..............
..........d o .........................................
T exas
U t a h ...................... M o t i o n o f c o m m i s s i o n . . .
W a s h i n g t o n -----W e s t V ir g in ia ..
E i t h e r p a r t y .........................
M u tu a l a g re e m e n t; or
c o m m i s s i o n ’ s m o t io n
i n ca se o f p e r m a n e n t l y
d i s a b l e d m in o r s .
B e n e f ic i a r y .............................
M o tio n o f co m m issio n e r.
W i s c o n s i n ...........
M o tio n o f c o m m is s io n
V erm ont
V i r g in i a ................
6 m o n t h s . . . ..............
6 m o n t h s ....................
A p p r o v a l o f co u rt n ecessa ry.
I n d e a t h o r p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y ca ses.
U n d e r s p e c i a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s i f d e e m e d
a d v is a b le .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r tie s .
I n u n u s u a l c a s e s a n d b e s t in t e r e s t s o f
p a r t ie s .
I n d e a t h o r p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i li t y ca se s .
U n d e r s p e c i a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s a n d i f a d
v is a b le .
B e s t in t e r e s t o f p a r t ie s . C o n s e n t o f a ll
p a r t ie s i n p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i li t y
ca ses .
W y o m i n g .........
ACCIDENT REPORTING AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION,
Coordinate with the movement for the enactment of workmen's
compensation laws has been the growth of the movement for accident
prevention. In fact, our workmen's compensation laws have been
enacted in the vague belief that industrial accidents are inevitable
and constitute a permanent and integral part of our industrial life.
For a number o f years prior to the enactment of the first compensa
tion laws in 1911, a considerable amount of safety legislation had
been on the statute books of many of the more advanced industrial
States, but the extent and effectiveness of these laws as regards ac
cident prevention were unsatisfactory. The methods of prevention
were practically limited to the mechanical guarding of danger points,
and as there appeared to be no diminution in the number of accidents
it came to be felt that perhaps accidents, like the poor, were always
to be with us, The enactment of workmen's compensation legislation,
however, in which the financial burden placed upon the employer
was in direct proportion to his accident rate, gave a fresh impetus to
accident-prevention work. Better and more comprehensive safety
laws were passed. Moreover, the casualty insurance companies en
tered upon a new era of active accident prevention, which was shared
by many of the larger manufacturing establishments throughout the
country.
ACCIDENT REPORTING AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
123
Reports of accidents, also, liave been incomplete and lacking in
uniformity, so that little material of a reliable nature has been avail
able. Here, too, the influence of compensation enactments has been
felt, even in the brief period covered by their existence. Accurate re
porting and analysis of accidents as to causes, nature of injury, and
length of disability, are absolutely essential, not only for effective
accident prevention work, but for the establishment of just and ade
quate insurance rates. Although considerable improvement has been
accomplished since the enactment of compensation laws the problem
of accident reporting and prevention has by no means been solved.
Just what the quantitative effect of workmen’s compensation laws
upon accident reduction has been is still problematical, due to the
absence of uniform and reliable statistics and the lack of a proper
method of measuring industrial hazards. The committee on statis
tics and compensation insurance cost of the International Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions has recently issued
a report48 in which it has formulated standard accident tables and
recommended the adoption of a schedule of severity ratings to
measure industrial hazards. Statistical reports issued by certain
manufacturing establishments and State industrial accident commis
sions have shown marked decreases in accident frequency rates, espe
cially after the adoption of safety organization methods, but a criti
cal analysis of these reports shows that this reduction was limited
largely to minor or short-time disability accidents.
That the increased safety activities have resulted in accident reduc
tion would seem probable, but the extent and nature of reduction can
only be surmised. There are relatively more accidents reported to-day
than there were five years ago, but this does not mean necessarily that
accident rates have increased. It may be simply that more accidents
are reported than formerly.
The principal requirements of each State as to accident reporting
and prevention are shown in the chart following page 130. Five of
the compensation acts 49 make no provision for accident reporting
and nearly all make no provision for accident-prevention work.
ACCIDENT REPORTING.
It will be noted that the provisions as to accident reporting lack
uniformity. Only 20 States50 require all accidents to be reported,
while nine States51 require only those of one day’s disability or more ;
48 P u b l is h e d i n t h e M o n t h l y R e v i e w , U . S . B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s , fo r O c t o b e r , 1917, p p . 123-143.
« A la s k a , A r iz o n a , L o u is ia n a , N e w M e x i c o , a n d T e n n e s s e e .
so C a lifo r n ia ( i n v o l v i n g t i m e lo s s o r m e d i c a l a i d ) , C o lo r a d o , D e la w a r e , M a in e , M a r y la n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s ,
M ic h ig a n , M o n t a n a , N e v a d a , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a , O h io , O k l a h o m a , O r e g o n , P o r t o R i c o , S o u t h
D a k o ta , U ta h , W a s h in g to n , W is c o n s in , a n d W y o m in g .
61
O n e d a y ’ s d i s a b i li t y , C o n n e c t ic u t , H a w a i i, I d a h o , M in n e s o t a , a n d V e r m o n t (a ls o in ju r ie s r e q u i r in g
m e d i c a l a i d ) ; m o r e t h a n o n e d a y , I n d i a n a , I o w a , K e n tu c k y , a n d T e x a s .
124
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
one52 requires those of more than two days of disability; three53
require those of more than one week; three54 require those of over
two weeks; and four55 provide that such accidents be reported as are
required by the commissioner or inspector. Five States,56 as already
noted, make no provision for accident reporting in the compensation
act, but have such laws outside the act. Of these States, Alaska
provides for the reporting of such mining accidents as the governor
may require; Arizona requires only serious or fatal accidents in
mines to be reported; Louisiana requires the reporting of accidents
of two weeks’ disability or more in establishments where women and
children are employed; New Mexico requires the reporting of all
fatal accidents in mines; and Tennessee requires all mine accidents
to be reported Immediately to the chief mine inspector and all
serious accidents in mills and factories to the bureau of workshops
and factory inspection.
Of the 40 States providing for accident reporting in the compen
sation law, in 2557 all employers are required to report accidents;
in 1258 employers subject to the compensation act; in Wisconsin
only employers having four or more employees; in Wyoming only
those engaged in extrahazardous employments; while in Nebraska
such reports of accidents shall be made as directed by the compensa
tion commissioner.
In the 34 States having administrative commissions, accidents are
required to be reported to such commissions, except in Pennsylvania,
where the compensation act is administered jointly by the workmen’s
compensation board and the department of labor and industry,,
Several States have more than one accident-reporting law, due in
some instances to the failure to repeal the existing law when the
compensation act was passed. In such cases the old law is usually
not enforced. Then again in those States in which the compensation
act requires only employers subject to the act to report accidents
there usually exist other accident-reporting laws providing that such
employers as are included within its scope must report their accidents
to other State departments. Such laws, in most States, however,
are not enforced at all, or at least are enforced ineffectively.
62 P e n n s y lv a n ia .
m
I ll i n o i s , M is s o u r i (a ls o t h o s e r e q u i r in g m e d i c a l a i d ) , a n d V i r g in i a .
m
A la b a m a , N e w J e rse y , a n d R h o d e Is la n d .
es K a n s a s , N e b r a s k a , N e w H a m p s h ir e , a n d W e s t V i r g in ia .
ee A l a s k a , A r iz o n a , L o u is ia n a , N e w M e x i c o , a n d T e n n e s s e e .
m
C a lifo r n ia , C o lo r a d o , H a w a i i, I d a h o , I n d i a n a , I o w a , M a r y la n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M ic h ig a n , M in n e s o t a
(e m p lo y e r s e n g a g e d i n i n d u s t r ia l p u r s u i t s ) , M is s o u r i, M o n t a n a , N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a ,
O h io , O k l a h o m a , O r e g o n , P e n n s y lv a n ia ( e x c e p t c a s u a l e m p l o y m e n t s ) , P o r t o R i c o , T e x a s , U t a h , V i r g in i a ,
W a s h i n g t o n , a n d W e s t V ir g in ia .
68
A l a b a m a , C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , I l l i n o i s , K a n s a s , K e n t u c k y , M a in e , N e v a d a , N e w
R h o d e I s la n d (e x c e p t p u b lic u t ilit ie s ), S o u th D a k o ta , a n d V e r m o n t.
H a m p s h ir e ,
ACCIDENT REPORTING AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
125
ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
Accident reporting and accident prevention are closely related.
In fact, effective prevention of accidents depends largely upon a
knowledge of their causes, frequency, and nature. A compensation
commission, in the very nature of things, must receive reports of
all compensable injuries, and that it is the only agency which does
receive them is shown by experience. Furthermore, the problem of
accident prevention is intimately connected with the whole theory
and system of compensation. It would seem, therefore, that this
important work might logically be undertaken b y the same agency
that administers the compensation provisions. As a matter of fact,
however, the practice of a large majority of the States has been in
the opposite direction, as is shown by an examination of the chart.
It will be noted that of the 34 States having the commission type
of administration, 18 59 make no provision for accident-prevention
work by the compensation commission. In 6 States 60 the commis
sion is authorized to perform some safety work, but, with the excep
tion of Colorado and Idaho, this power is very slight. In Colorado
the commission has jurisdiction over all places of employment for the
purpose of enforcing the safety statutes, but thus far the accident
prevention work has been carried on by other agencies. This leaves
only 10 States 61 in which all the safety work is done by the industrial
commission. In fact, in all but three of these States 62 the entire
body of labor laws is enforced by this one agency.
SUMMARY COMPARISON.
Thus far the principal features of the various compensation laws
have been treated as individual units. In order to obtain a concise
but comprehensive view of the relative importance or adequacy of
the entire law in each of the several States it has been deemed advis
able to bring together briefly in tabular form a summary of the most
important features. These principal provisions include the per
centage of employees covered, money benefits received, medical
service, waiting period, percentage of wages, and weekly maximum
and minimum compensation. It is impossible for the purpose of
this study to work out an absolutely accurate comparison of the rela
tive compensation benefits of the several States. However, as a fair
indication of all of the compensation benefits, four typical items or
injuries have been taken: (1) Death, (2) loss of major hand at the
69
C o n n e c t ic u t , D e la w a r e , H a w a i i, I o w a , K e n t u c k y , I ll in o i s , M a in e , M a r y la n d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M ic h ig a n ,
M is s o u r i, N e v a d a , O k l a h o m a , P o r t o R i c o , S o u t h D a k o t a , T e x a s , V i r g in i a , a n d W a s h i n g t o n .
60 C o lo r a d o , I d a h o , I o w a , O r e g o n , P e n n s y lv a n ia , a n d W e s t V ir g in i a .
61 C a lifo r n ia , I n d i a n a , M o n t a n a ( e x c e p t m in e s a n d b o i l e r s ) , N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y o r k , N o r t h D a k o t a , O h i 6 ,
U t a h , V e r m o n t , a n d W i s c o n s in .
62 C a lifo r n ia , M o n t a n a , a n d N o r t h D a k o t a .
126
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAW S OF UNITED STATES.
wrist; (3) total disability for a period of 4 weeks, and (4) total dis
ability for a period of 13 weeks. The waiting period was deducted
in computing the benefits for both of the disability items and for the
loss of the hand in case compensation for temporary total disability
was provided by law.
The example taken was that of a married man, 35 years of age,
receiving $21 a week, and having a dependent wife, 30 years of age,
and three normal dependent children, 3, 6, and 9 years of age. In
computing the life expectancy of the injured man or his widow the
American experience table of mortality was used.
The maximum benefits in each case have been given. The amounts
computed for death include burial expenses where such are provided
by law. It has been assumed that the loss of the hand resulted in a
total disability of 26 weeks and a subsequent partial disability of
50 per cent for life. Several States have no schedules of specified
injuries, and in such States the compensation for loss of the hand has
be§.n based upon the given percentage of wages for the given number
of weeks limited by the maximum amounts. In such States, together
with those States which provide for a continuing partial disability
in addition to the specified scale, both compensations have been given;
i. e., compensation for total disability only and compensation for
total plus partial disability. Compensation for total disability
during the healing period has been included in the amounts given
for those States which provide for such benefits. For the totaldisability accidents, as already noted, the waiting period in each case
has been taken into consideration and deducted from the amount of
the compensation.
It has been the purpose to take an example which would be most
typical of all States and conditions. It is admittedly true that the spe
cific example and the four items taken will result in a higher scale for
some of the States than would have resulted had a different example
been taken or had the whole scale of compensation benefits been con
sidered. For example, compensation for the death of a married man
with three children would result favorably for such States as Nevada,
North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, New York, and West Virginia,
which pay compensation until the death or remarriage of the widow.
The medical benefits were not taken into consideration in computing
the money benefits for the cases cited. This provision is considered
separately. For Oregon 10 per cent has been deducted from each of
the compensation amounts. This 10 per cent represents the em
ployees* contributions, each employee being required by law to con
tribute 1 cent for each working day to the accident fund. As a
matter of fact the employees’ contributions have amounted to some
what less than 10 per cent. Perhaps it would seem unfair to Oregon
to deduct this 10 per cent, because for individual injuries the whole
S U M M A R Y CO M PARISO N .
127
amount of compensation is received. Rutr 011 the other hand, the
employees must regularly contribute their share, and the resultant
effect will be the same.
In computing the money benefits no account has been taken of the
present value of such benefits. A fixed lump sum paid outright at
the time of the injury of course exceeds the present worth of the same
amount paid in weekly installments over a period of years. In com
paring the computed benefits, therefore, it is necessary to take this
fact into consideration.
In estimating the “ per cent of employees subject to act” as given
in the table, all employees in employments covered by the compen
sation law are included, assuming that all employers who may elect
to come under the act have made such election. The figures, there
fore, show the maximum possible inclusions under existing law*
3 4 .—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS PAID UNDER THE W O RK M EN ’S COMPENSATION LAW S OF THE SE VER A L STATES.
M e d ic a l s e r v ic e .
M o n e y b e n e fit s i n t y p i c a l ca ses.
3 3 .6
3 1 .2
D ea th .
$3,250
4,800
3 .2 7 6
3 ,1 2 5
3 ,3 7 6
4,9 9 4
5 ,1 0 0
7,3 4 5
4 .0 0 0
3 .5 6 5
3 .8 8 0
3 .2 7 6
4,0 7 5
3 .5 6 5
M a in e ......................
7 2 .9
3 ,5 0 0
M a r y l a n d ..............
4 5 .9
4,3 2 5
M a s s a c h u s e t t s ...
8 7 .8
4.0 0 0
M ic h ig a n ................
M in n e s o t a .............
M is s o u r i.................
M o n t a n a ................
N e b r a s k a ..............
N e v a d a ..................
83.1
7 9 .0
5 0 .9
7 0 .4
7 6 .2
3 ,7 8 0
3 .8 8 0
4 ,3 0 0
4 ,2 7 5
5 ,0 5 0
1 5,672
N e w H a m p s h ir e
5 6 .0
3 .0 0 0
N e w J e r s e y ..........
N e w M e x i c o ____
N e w Y o r k ............
N o r th D a k o t a ...
O h i o ....... .................
O k l a h o m a ............
O r e g o n ....................
P e n n s y l v a n i a . ..
9 9 .8
3 0 .7
8 0 .1
4 6 .8
7 6 .3
3 5 .9
4 8 .7
3 ,2 5 0
3 ,5 4 0
1 5,647
17,582
5,1 5 9
(5)
.
613,837
5 ,4 0 6
66.1
88.8
2,021
2 ,4 0 2
2 ,3 1 0
1 .8 9 0
1 .5 7 5
1 ,8 0 0
1 ,7 3 3
1 .5 7 5
2 2 ,6 7 8
1 .5 7 5
844
2 4 ,8 4 4
1 .8 9 0
2,100
2 ,6 7 4
1 .5 7 5
2 ,4 5 0
2 ,6 0 6
240
2 1 ,6 7 9
2 ,0 9 5
1,1 5 5
3 ,4 1 6
3 ,6 4 0
2 ,1 5 0
2,100
6 2 ,0 0 5
2,100
$163.80
136.50
21.00
$100
60 d a y s ..
P e r io d a b o lis h e d
i f d i s a b i li t y la sts .
5er c e n t
f w ages.
W e e k ly
m a x im u m .
2 w eeks..
. . . d o ..........
4 w e e k s ..............
8 w e e k s ..............
25-60
50
$ 1 2 .0 0 -$ 1 5 .00
$ 5 .0 0
...do.......
O v e r 2 w e e k s ..
50
1 w eek.
10 d a y s .
1 w eek —
2 w eeks. . .
1 w eek —
2 0.8 3
O v e r 4 w e e k s ..........
4 w e e k s ......................
P a r t ia ll y d is a b le d .
4 .1 7
5 .0 0
5 .0 0
5 .0 0
3 .0 0
4 2.00
136.50
4 0.95
25.71
3 1.50
4 2.00
37.8 0
34.65
54.60
3 4.65
2 5.20
37.80
36.00
34.65
163.80
115.71
136.50
136.50
151.20
138.60
177.45
138.60
138.60
151.20
144.00
150.15
........ d o .........
8 w e e k s 3. . .
30 d a y s s . . .
4 w eeks —
50 d a y s ........
90 d a y s ........
U n li m i t e d ..
U n lim it e d ,
32.40
145.80
30 d a y s 3 . . .
a $100
21.00
115.50
U n li m i t e d ..
$150
2 w e e k s ...
36.00.
162.00
2 w e e k s s .. .
U n li m i t e d .
10 d a y s . . . .
3 7.80
42.00
4 2.00
90 d a y s ........
42.00
5 9.63
163.80
168.00
182.00
115.50
182.00
193.80
20.00
110.00
3 0.86
138.86
115.50
182.00
182.00
168.00
1 36.50
6 1 4 7.4 2
138.86
21.00
21.00
2 8.00
5 6.00
4 2.0 0
4 2.00
6 4 5.36
30.8 6
U n lim it e d .
60 d a y s ........
U n lim it e d .
2 w eeks—
U n lim it e d .
U n li m i t e d .
$200
U n lim it e d .
$75
$150
U n lim it e d .
. . . d o ............
3 $200 . . . d o ............
a $100
$150
$100
$150
4 w e e k s ......................
. . . d o ............
2 w eeks. . .
1 w eek —
. . . d o ............
. . . d o ............
10 d a y s .
____ do. 3 ....
8 w eeks —
2 w eeks —
$100
U n li m i t e d ..
90 d a y s 3 .. . .
$200
. . . d o ............
$200 .. . d o ............
$50
U n li m i t e d .
2 w eeks. . .
1 w eek —
. . d o ............
O v e r 6 w e e k s ..
6 w eek s.
2 w eek s.
,
3 $50 10 d a y s . . . .
2 w eeks. . .
$50
U n li m i t e d . .. . d o ............
____d o .............. 1 w e e k —
3 $200 .. . d o ............
3 $100
.. - d o ............
3 $250
N o n e ...........
3 $100 10 d a y s . . . .
3 w eek s.
6.00
$ 7 .0 0 -1 0 .0 0
5 .5 0
12.00
5 .0 0
3 .0 0
6.00
6.00
1 8.00
15.00
6.00
12.00
5 .0 0
66$
10 . 00- 16.0 0
4 .0 0 - 7 .0 0
60
30-66§
66§
30-50
66 |
1 5 -6 6 i
14.0 0
15.0 0
15.0 0
1 2.5 0
1 5.0 0
9 .2 3 - 1 8 .4 6
7 .0 0
6 .5 0
50
O v e r 7 w e e k s ..
O ver 1 w e e k . .
12.00
1 2 .0 0 - 1 5.0 0
1 3 .2 0
1 5 .0 0
15.0 0
50
2 w eeks. . .
4 w eek s 3 ...
2 w eeks —
60 d a y s s . . . .
U n lim it e d ..
____ d o ..........
60 d a y s 3 ....
U n li m i t e d ..
30 d a y s ........
10.00
1 4 .0 0 - 18.0 0
1 5 .0 0 - 1 8.0 0
12 . 00- 2 1 .6 0
60
0)........
1 w e e k ____ 6 w e e k s .
____d o .
65
50
50
15-60
25-60
20-55
50-65
55
60
60
65
25-55
W e e k ly
m in im u m .
35-66§
15-60
15-66§
20- 66f
66|
50
(0
15-60
6.00
6.00
6.00
6 .9 2
10.00
12.00
6.00
6.00
12 . 00- 1 8.0 0
1 5 .0 0 - 2 0 .0 0
5 .0 0
20.00
6.00
1 2 .0 0 - 15.0 0
18.00
( 7)
5 .0 0
12.00
8.00
( 7)
6.00
STATES.
4.000
7 6 .2
6 3.1
8 1 .9
6 2 .9
9 2 .6
6 8 .7
5 5 .4
7 9 .4
6 2 .7
3 6 .9
6 0 .2
3 5 .2
$50.40
D u r a t io n .
OF UNITED
5 2 .4
13 w e e k s .
M a x im u m
am ou n t.
LAWS
A r iz o n a ..................
C a lifo r n ia ..............
C o l o r a d o ................
C o n n e c t ic u t .........
D e la w a r e ..............
H a w a i i ...................
I d a h o ......................
I l l i n o i s ....................
I n d i a n a ..................
I o w a .........................
K a n s a s ....................
K e n t u c k y .............
L o u is ia n a ..............
S I, 890
2,4 0 0
273
2 4 ,0 0 0
2,8 5 3
1,0 4 0
1,911
1,6 5 9
2 ,5 6 2
4 w eeks.
M a x im u m
p e r io d .
R a t e o f m o n e y b e n e fit s .
OF COMPENSATION
A la b a m a ................
A l a s k a ....................
T o t a l d is a b ilit y
a c c id e n t .
L oss of
hand.1
W a it i n g p e r io d .
COMPAEISON
S ta te .
P er cen t
of em
p lo y e e s
s u b je c t
t o a ct.
128
T able
2 0 .5
R h o d e Is la n d .
8 2 .9
3 .0 0 0
S ou th D a k ota .
T e n n e s s e e .........
T e x a s .................
U t a h ...................
V e r m o n t ...........
V ir g in ia .............
W a s h i n g t o n ...
W e s t V irg in ia .
W i s c o n s in ........
W y o m i n g _____
5 8 .0
3 7 .2
4 7 .9
7 4 .4
5 5 .2
4 5 .6
5 1 .5
8 0 .1
7 5 .4
4 6 .3
3 .0 0 0
4 ,3 0 0
4 ,5 3 6
4>094
2 ,5 5 7
14,8 69
10,2 49
4 ,4 6 8
3 ,0 5 0
U n it e d S ta te s .
100.0
17,582
3,100
f
\
773\
773’
2 ,3 4 8 /
2 2,348
2,033
1,575
1,890
2,212
1,859
1,500
1,9 1 5
2,100
3 ,2 7 6
1,3 4 8
358
}
11,954
28.00
91.00
21.00
136.50
29.70
150.15
136.50
151. 20
158.40
126.00
U n lim it e d ..
4 >3eks —
3 6.3 5
3 1 .5 0
40.95
3 8.88
12 w e e k s . . .
30 d a y s ____
2 w e e k s 3 ...
U n li m i t e d ..
2 w e e k s ____
110.00 30 d a y s .........
J57. 50 U n li m i t e d 8.
126. 00 ......... d o ...........
177.45 90 d a y s s . . . .
174.00 U n l i m i t e d . .
50.00
176 .00
21.00
3 7.8 0
4 5.0 0
3 1 .5 0
20.00
......... d o ...........
U n li m i t e d .
N o n e ___
50
7 .0 0
3 .0 0
____ d o ..............
2 w eeks.
O v e r 4 w e e k s ..
50
10 . 00- 14.0 0
4 .0 0 - 7 .0 0
10 d a y s . .
2 w eek s.
1 w eek ..
6 w e e k s ..............
.........d o .................
55
2 0-50
60
60
15-50
50
( 7)
50
65
( 9)
12.00
11.0 0
6 .5 0
5 .0 0
5 .0 0
7 .0 0
3 .0 0
5 .0 0
SI 50
$100
U n li m i t e d .
$500
$100
U n li m i t e d .
8 U n li m i t e d .
3 d a y s ...
1 w eek ..
2 w eeks.
1 w eek..
O v e r 30 d a y s .
$600 . . . d o ____
U n li m i t e d .
$100
. . - d o -----10 d a y s . .
U n li m i t e d .
3 d a y s ...
O v e r 4 w e e k s ..
O v e r 30 d a y s . .
10- 66|
15.0 0
16. 00
10 . 00- 1 2 .5 0
10.00
( 7)
12.00
( 9)
5 .0 0
6 .8 3
( 9)
1 5.38
1 I t is a s s u m e d t h a t lo s s o f h a n d ca u se s d e c re a se o f 50 p e r c e n t in e a r n in g c a p a c i t y .
2 I n c l u d e s c o m p e n s a t io n fo r p a r t i a l d i s a b i li t y .
3 A d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e i n s p e c i a l ca s e s o r i n d is c r e t io n o f c o m m is s io n .
4 O n e w e e k i n c a s e o f p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d is a b ilit y .
5 F a t a l a c c id e n t s n o t c o v e r e d .
7 .6 9
COM PARISON.
6 1 0 p e r c e n t d e d u c t e d t o c o v e r e m p l o y e e ’s c o n t r ib u t io n s .
7 M o n t h l y p e n s io n ; m a x i m u m , $50; m in i m u m , $10 t o $30. M a x im u m in c r e a s e d t o 60 p e r c e n t o f w a g e s fo r first 6 m o n t h s i n c a s e o f t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i li t y .
8 E m p lo y e e s m u s t p a y o n e -h a l f o f m e d i c a l c o s t .
*
9 M o n t h l y p e n s io n in ca s e o f t e m p o r a r y d is a b ilit y ; m a x i m u m , $60; m i n i m u m , $35. F i x e d a m o u n t s in o t h e r ca s e s .
129
(0
1 4 .6 3
StfMMARY
1 7 2 3 0 8 °— 2 0 — Bull. 275-
P orto E ic o —
130
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION -LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
Table 35 shows the most advantageous and the least advantageous
compensation provisions, from the viewpoint of the employee, in
the various States:
T able 3 5 . — E X T R E M E S O F L I B E R A L I T Y I N T H E C O M P E N S A T I O N P R O V I S I O N S O F T H E
V A R IO U S S T A T E S .
M o s t a d v a n t a g e o u s p r o v is i o n s .
L e a s t a d v a n t a g e o u s p r o v is i o n s .
N a t u r e o f p r o v is i o n .
S t a te .
P e r c e n ta g e o f e m p l o y e e s c o v e r e d . . .
C o m p e n s a t i o n fo r d e a t h ..........................
C o m p e n s a t i o n fo r lo s s o f h a n d ............
C o m p e n s a t i o n fo r 4 w e e k s ’ d is a
b ilit y .
C o m p e n s a t io n fo r 13 w e e k s ’ d is a
b ilit y .
M e d ic a l s e r v i c e .............................................
W a it i n g p e r i o d .............................................
W e e k l y m a x i m u m c o m p e n s a t i o n ...
W e e k l y m in i m u m c o m p e n s a t i o n . ...
A m o u n t or
p ercen ta g e.
N e w J e r s e y .......... 9 9 .3 p e r c e n t .
N o r th D a k o t a ...
j$ 1 7 ,5 8 2 .
U n it e d S t a t e s ...
N o r t h D a k o t a . . . S 3 ,6#0.
N e v a d a .................. $ 5 9 .6 3 .
N e v a d a . ................
0)
$193. SO.
S t a te .
P o r t o R i c o ............
O k l a h o m a , ..........
V e r m o n t ................
C o l o r a d o ................
N e w H a m p s h ir e .
V i r g in i a ..................
P o r t o R i c o ............
N e w H a m p s h ir e .
V i r g i n i a ..................
A m o u n t or
p ercen ta g e.
20.5 p e r c e n t .
N on e.
$ 2 ,5 5 7 .
S I , 040.
>$20.
#91.
j - l l 10 .
U n lim ite d .
O r e g o n ....................
j-N o n e .
P o r t o R i c o ...........
C a lifo r n ia ............... $ 2 0 .8 3 .
N o r t h D a k o t a . . . $ 20 .
I l l i n o i s ................
S7-S1T).
O k l a h o m a ............ 18.
A r iz o n a ................... j N o n e .
N e w H a m p s h ir e .
( 2)
2 w eek s.
P o r t o R i o o ............
%7.
H a w a i i ....................
L o u i s i a n a ..............
P o r t o R i c o ............
V e r m o n t ................
33.
1 C a lifo r n ia , C o n n e c t ic u t , I d a h o , N o r t h D a k o t a , P o r t o R i c o , a n d t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t .
2 A l a b a m a , A la s k a , A r iz o n a , D e la w a r e , I o w a , M a r y l a n d , M o n t a n a , N e w H a m p s h ir e , N e w
N e w Y o r k , R h o d e I s l a n d , T e n n e s s e e , a n d V i r g in i a .
M e x ico ,
It is obvious that no fixed form of analysis or summary presenta
tion can give in complete detail the provisions of the laws under
consideration. They relate not only to the compensation of ac
cidents, but to accident reporting, safety provisions, the enforce
ment of safety laws, the establishment of insurance systems, pre
mium rates, investments, the scale of payments in cases of certain
forms of negligence or their increase under certain conditions,
procedure in arbitration, forms of appeal, and a great variety of
subjects on which it would be impossible to generalize, and which
can be discovered only by a reading of the individual statutes,
though the use of the index to the laws will aid in this. The adop
tion by a few States of laws generally similar can be clearly recog
nized, but it is obvious that at the present time it can not be said
that any one type of law is predominantly approved. Admitting
that the question of State insurance is open to discussion, it can not
be denied that some form of security of payments is desirable; and
while constitutional limitations may appear to stand in the way of
compulsory compensation systems, it is none the less certain that the
welfare of both employer and employee, as well as the public interest
generally, would be served by the general adoption of laws, just and
certain in their operations, and not dependent for their acceptance
on the personal views or interests of individuals or groups o f
individuals.
PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.
[C h a r t R e v is e d J a n . 1 , 1920.]
Employm ents covered.
IIow election is made.
State.
Insurance.
Private.
Public.
B y employer.
By employee.
Presumed in absence
of written notice
filed w ith court and
posted in establish
ment.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and filed
w ith court.
Compensation benefits.
Suits for damages.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
If both employer and
employee come un
deract.
Special contracts.
Injuries covored.
(6)
All electing employers must re (a) N o provision.
Chief mine inspector.2
port all accidents of over 2 weeks’
disability to compensation com
missioner w ithin 15 days; sup
plementary report after 60 days
or upon termination of disability.
Only in fatal cases involving no
dependents; maximum, $150 for
expenses between injury and
death.
N otice in 120 days;
claim in 2 years.
Courts.
Voluntary agreement; disputed
cases settled by courts.
N o provision.
Reasonable medical and burial
expenses only in fatal cases in
volving no dependents.
N otice in 2 weeks;
none required in
case of death or in
competence; action
on claim w ithin 1
year.
Courts.
Voluntary agreement; disputed N o provision.
cases settled by arbitration, refer
ence to attorney general, and
eventually by courts.
If permanent, 65 per cent of wage Reasonable medical, surgical, and
loss for fixed periods propor
hospital treatment.
tionate to disability: if tempo
rary, 65 per cent of wage loss
during disability; not over 240
weeks nor over 3 tim es annual
earnings. Disfigurement com
pensable.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 6 years; (a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during If permanent, 50 per cent of wages Reasonable medical, surgical, and
m ultiplied by percentage of total
hospital treatment for GO days;
disability; weekly maximum,
weekly maxim um $10, m ini
disability, but not over $2,600; if
maximum, $200; special operat
$10; minimum, $5, or actual
m um $5; total not over $3,125.
temporary, 50 per cent ot wage
ing fee of $50 in case of hernia;
wages if less than $5.
(b) Reasonable burial expenses;
loss during disability; weekly
also additional for dental serv
maxim um, $75.
maxim um, $10; total not over
ice; maxim um, $100.
$1,300. Specified injuries, 50
per cent of wages for fixed
periods; weekly m axim um, $10.
Facial disfigurement, maximum,
$500.
(a) Burial expenses, $100; 50 per (a) (6) 50 per cent of wages during 50 per cent of wage loss during dis Such medical, surgical, or hospital
ability, not over 520 weeks;
disability, not over 520 weeks;
cent of wages for 312 weeks;
treatment as deemed reasonable
weekly maxim um, $14; m ini
weekly maxim um, $18. Speci
weekly maximum, $18; mini
by attending physician; charges
mum, $5.
mum, $5. (6) Burial expenses,
fied injuries, 50 per cent of
lim ited to those prevailing in
wages for fixed periods; weekly
$100.
the community. Special provi
maxim um, $18; minimum, $5.
sion for seamen on U nited States
Notice in 30 days;
claim in 6 months
for disability, 1 year
for death.
Industrial
accident
commission.
Voluntary agreement approved by
commission; disputed cases re
ferred to one or more referees
appointed by commission and
reviewed by commission; re
hearing in certain cases; appeal
to courts upon questions of law.
All employers, attending physi
cians. and insurers must report
all injuries involving tim e loss or
medical aid to industrial acci
dent commission.
Fatal in
juries must be reported im m e
diately.
(a) Industrial accident
commission.
(6) Bu
reau of labor statistics.2
Notice in 2 days;
claim in 1 year; 18
months in case of
minors or persons
m entally incompe
tent.
Industrial
sion.
commis
Voluntary agreement approved by
commission; disputed cases de
termined by commission, after
hearing, upon application of
either party; petition for rehear
ing; appeal to courts upon ques
tions of law .
A ll employers must report all acci
dents w ithin 10 days to indus
trial commission.
(a) Industrial commission.
(6) Department of labor
and factory inspection;2
inspectors of coal mines;2
bureau of m ines.2
Notice at once; claim
in 1 year.
Board of 5 compensa
tion commissioners,
each supreme in
his own district.
Voluntary agreement approved by
commissioner; disputed cases
settled by commissioner after
hearing upon application of
either party; appeals to courts.
Assenting employers must report (a) No provision. (6) De
all injuries of 1 day’s disability
partment of labor and
weekly to compensation commis
factory inspection.2
sioner.
81.9
Connecticut.
Death, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
550 weeks. Others, 300
weeks.
(a) Expenses of last sickncss and
burial, maximum, $100; 25 to 60
per cent of wages for not over
300 weeks; weekly m axim um ,
$12 to $15; minimum, $5, or ac
tual wages if less than $5; total
not over $5,000. (6) Expenses
of last sickness and burial, m ax
im um , $100.
2 weeks. None if dis
ability
continues
for 8 weeks or more.
50 per cent for tempo
rary total disability.
Fixed lump sums m
other cases.
No provision.
Temporary total disabil
ity , 6 months.
(a) $3,000 to widow or minor or
phan; $600 to each child under
16 and to dependent parents;
maxim um, $6,000. If single,
$1,200 to each dependent parent.
(6) $150 maxim um for burial ex
penses; $150 for other expenses
between accident and death.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in the course of
employment duo wholly or
partly to a necessary risk of the
employment or to failure of em
ployer or any employee to exer
cise due care or to comply w ith
any law.
Waivers forbidden----- Personal injuries arising out of
and in the course of employment
unless due to intoxication or in
tentionally self-inflicted; in
cludes injuries to artificiallimbs.
Occupational diseases specifical
ly included.
2 weeks. None if dis
ability
continues
longer than 2 weeks.
50 per cent.
No provision.
D eath, 200 weeks’ earn
ings, payable as court
m ay order. Disability,
during its continuance.
(a) 2,400 tim es one-half average
daily wages; maximum, $4,000.
(6) Reasonable m edical and
burial expenses.
1 w eek.
65 p ercen t.
Maximum, $20.83. Mini
mum, $4.17.
D eath, 240 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary disabil
ity , 240 weeks.
(a) 3 years’ annual earnings; m ax
im um , $5,000; minimum, $1,000.
(b) Reasonable burial expenses;
maximum, $100; and $350 to be
paid into industrial rehabilita
tion fund.
Waivers fo r b id d e n ,
but approved hos
pital fund m ay be
maintained.
10 days..
50 p ercen t.
Maximum, $10.
Mini
mum: Death, $5; disa
bility, $5, or actual wages
if less than $5.
D eath, 312 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary total
and partial disability,
during its continuance.
1 week. None if dis
ability
continues
longer than 4 weeks.
50 per cen t.
Maximum: Death and
partial disability, $18;
total disability, $14.
Minimum, $5.
Death, 312 weeks. Disa
bility, 520 weeks.
2 weeks. None if dis
ability
continues
for 4 weeks or more.
Death, 15 to GO per
cent. Disability, 50
per cent.
Death: Weekly basic wage, Permanent total disabil
ity , 475 weeks. Others,
maximum, $30; mini
285 weeks.
mum, $10. Disability:
Maximum, $15; mini
mum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
(a) Expenses of burial and last
sickness, maximum, $100; 25 to 60
per cent of wages to widow or de
pendent widower for 285 weeks;
weekly basic wage, maxim um,
$30; minimum, $10. (b) Expen
ses of burial and last sickness,
m aximum, $100.
(a) (5) 50 per ccnt of wages during
disability, not over 475 weeks;
weekly maximum, $15; mini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5; total not over $1,000.
50 per ccnt of wage loss for not over
285 weeks; weekly maxim um,
$15. Specified injuries, 50 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
weekly maximum, $15; mini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital treatment for 2 weeks,
if requested by employee or
orderod by board; maxim um,
$75.
N otice in 14 days; if
in 30 days, not
barred except as to
extent
employer
was prejudiced; bar
absolute after 90
days. Claim in 1
year.
Industrial
board.
accident
Voluntary agreement approved by
board; disputed cases settled by
board after hearing; appeal to
court.
All assenting employers m ust re
port all accidents to industrial
accident board w ithin 10 days;
supplementary report upon ter
mination of disability.
(a) No provision,
provision.
(6) No
62.!
Delaware.
1 week. None in case
of partial disability.
D eath, 25 to 60 per
cent.
Total disa
bility, GO per cent.
Partial disability,
50 per cent.
Death: Basic wage, m axi
mum, $36; m inimum ,
$5. Total d is a b il it y :
Maximum, $18; mini
mum, $3, or actual
wages if less than $3 in
case of temporary disa
bility.
Partial disa
bility: Maximum, $12.
(a) Burial expenses, $100; 25 to 60
per cent of wages for 312 weeks;
basic w eekly wage, maxim um,
$36; minimum, $5; total, not
over $5,000.
(6) Burial ex
penses, $100.
(a) (6) 60 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 312 weeks;
weekly maxim um, $18: mini
mum, $3, or actual wages if less
than $3 in case of temporary dis
ability; total not over $5,000.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, not over 312 weeks;
weekly m axim um, $12; total not
over $5,000. Specified injuries.
50 per cent of wages for fixed
periods.
Facial or head dis
figurement, maxim um, $5,000.
Reasonable medical, surgical,
and hospital service; m axim um
$150; charges lim ited to those
prevailing in the com m unity.
Notice as soon as prac
ticable; claim in 3
months.
Industrial
accident
board
for
each
county.
V oluntary agreement approved
b y board; disputed cases settled
b y board or by arbitration com
m ittee of 3 persons composed of
representatives of each party
and a member of board; review
b y full board; appeal to courts.
All employers m ust report all in
juries of 1 day's disability or
moro as soon as practicable to
industrial accident board; sup
plementary report at termina
tion of disability or after 60
days; final report w ithin 60
days after term ination of dis
ability.
(a) No provision.
provision.
(6) N o
92.6
Hawaii.
Elective, as to mining operations
having 5 or moro employees.
N o provision.
N ot required.
Arizona. Ch. 14 (extra ses
sion). Approved June 8,
1912. In effect Sept. 1,
1912. New act, ch. 7,1913,
amended, 1919.
Compulsory, as to “ especially
hazardous” employments enu
merated . Voluntary, as to other
employments.
No provision.
N ot required.
California. Ch. 399.
Ap
proved Apr. 8, 1911. In
effect Sept. 1, 1911. New
act, ch. 176,1913. Amend
ed, 1915. New act, ch. 586,
1917. In effect Jan. 1,1918.
Amended, 1919.
Compulsory, as to all employments
except farm labor, domestic
service, and casual employees
not in usual course of employer’s
business. Voluntary, as to ex
cepted employments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees e x c e p t
deputy clerks, dep
uty sheriffs, and
deputy constables
serving without re
muneration.
Employers must in
sure in the State
fund or private com
panies, or provide
self-insurance.
Colorado. Ch. 179. Ap
proved Apr. 10, 1915. In
effect Aug. 1,1915. Amend
ed, 1917. N ew act, 1919.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept those having regularly less
than 4 employees, farm labor,
domestic service, casual employ
ees not in usual course of em
ployer’s business. Voluntary,
as to excepted employments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees e x c e p t
elective officials and
members of National
Guard.
Electing
employers
must insure in State
f u n d or private
companies, or pro
vide self-insurance.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
commission; notice
of acceptance or re
jection to be posted.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer.
Assumed risk due to
employer’s
negli
gence, fellow service,
and
contributory
negligence u n l e s s
willful.
Not permitted.
Defenses remain, in
cluding
assumed
risk.
Connecticut. Ch. 13S. Ap
proved May 29, 1913. In
effect Jan. 1,1914. Amend
ed, 1915,1917, 1919.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept those having regularly less
than 5 employees, outworkers,
and casual employees. Volun
tary, as to excepted employ
ments.
Elective, as to the State
and all public cor
porations h a v i n g
regularly 5 or more
employees. Volun
tary, as to others.
Electing
employers
must insure in pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of written notice.
Presumed in absence
of written notice.
Assumed risk, fellow
sorvice, and con
tributory negligence.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Delaware. Ch. 233. Ap Elective, as to all employments ex
proved Apr. 2, 1917. In
cept those having less than 5 em
effect Jan. 1,1918. Amend
ployees, farm labor, domestic
ed, 1919
service, outworkers, and casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business.
E xcluded.
Electing
employers
must insure in pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of printed notice to
employees and filed
w ith board.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and filed
w ith board.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and con
tributory negligence.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Hawaii.
No. 221.
Ap Compulsory, as to all industrial
proved. Apr. 28, 1915. In
employments carried on for
effect July 1,1915. Amend
gain, except casual employees,
those not in usual course of
ed, 1917.
employer’s business, and those
receiving more than $36 a week
from any one employer.
Compulsory, as to all
employees except
elective officials or
employees receiving
more than $1,800 a
year.
Employers must in
sure in private com
panies, or provide
self-insurance.
Defenses remain........... Approved
schemes Personal injuries arising out of and
m ay be substituted
in course of employment unless
if benefits e q u a l
due to willful and serious mis
conduct or intoxication. Oc
those of act. Physi
cupational diseases specifically
cally defective em
ployees m ay waive
included.
right to compensa
tion.
Defenses r e m a i n . Approved substitute Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
Suits not permitted
schemes permitted
ployment unless due to willful
if injury due to will
if benefits equal
intention to injure self or an
ful intention to in
those of act. W aiv
other, intoxication, failure to
jure self or another,
ers forbidden.
use safeguards, violation of law,
intoxication, willful
reckless indifference to danger,
failure to use safe
or caused by third party for
guards, violation of
personal reasons. Occupational
law, or reckless in
diseases specifically excluded.
difference to danger.
Waivers forbidden___ Personal injuries by accident
arising out of and in course of
employm ent unless duo to w ill
ful intention to injure self or
another or to intoxication.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally included.
Direct settlements between par
ties if in “ substantial” con
formity w ith law; court m ay ap
prove a lesser amount if in in
terest of employee. Disputed
cases settled by courts.
State.
Maximum, $12 to $15.
Minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less tnan $5.
Defenses remain.........
Approved substitute
schemes permitted.
Agreements for re
duction of compen
sation benefits per
m itted If approved
by court.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence un
less willful or due to
intoxication.
Defenses remain, ex
cept assumed risk
growing out of em
ployer’s violation of
safety laws.
Waivers forbidden—
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment unless due to intoxi
cation, willful misconduct, in
tention to injure self or another,
inflicted by third party for per
sonal reasons, or willful failure
to use safety appliances, or obey
safety laws or rules. Occupa
tional diseases specifically ex
cluded.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out ot and in the course of
employment unless directly due
to intoxication or willful inten
tion to injure self or another.
Permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
1Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective States have accepted the act.
N otice to employer Courts. Lim ited su
w ithin 5 days; no
pervision by com
compensation if after
pensation commis
90 days. Claim in 1
sioner.
year.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(b) Temporary.
Death, 25 to GO per
cent. Disability, 50
to 00 per cent.
Alaska. Ch. 71. Approved
Apr. 29, 1915. In effect
July 28, 1915. Amended
1917.
172308—20. (To face page 130.) No. 1.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 60 days;
longer at option of employer;
maxim um, $100; charges lim ited
to those prevailing in the com
m unity.
Death.
(a) Dependents.
(b) No dependents.
Accident reports required.
2 weeks. None if dis
ability
continues
for 4 weeks or more.
Assumed risk, fellow N ot perm itted.
service, and contrib
utory negligence, un
less employee is
guilty of willful m is
conduct as defined.
N ot perm itted.
How compensation claims are
settled.
Maximum period.
Elective, as to employ N ot required.
ees of State. Volun
tary, as to employ
ees of county, city,
town, village, or
school district.
After injury, employee
has option of accept
ing compensation or
suing for damages;
if he sues, employer
retains defense of
contributory negli
gence.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Time for notice and Administrative system.
claim.
Maximum and minimum
weekly
compensation
paym ents.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept those having less than 16
employees, farm labor, domes
tic service, casual employments
not in usual course of employ
er’s business. Voluntary, as to
employments having less than
16 employees.
N ot permitted.
Per
Accident-prevention work
cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (6) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
to act.1
Medical and surgical aid.
Per cent of wages.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Alabama. No. 2*15. Ap
proved Aug. 23, 1919. In
effect Jan. 1, 1920.
Presumed in absence Presumed in absence
of written notice
of written notice
served on employer
filed w ith United
and f i l e d w i t h
States commissioner.
U nited States com
missioner.
Waiting period.
Personal injuries accidentally sus
tained arising out of and in the
course of employment unless
intentionally inflicted by self or
another.
312 weeks.
Partial disability.
(a) 50 to 60 per cent of wages for 50 to 60 per ccnt of wage loss during
400 weeks; weekly maxim um,
disability for not over 300 weeks;
weekly maximum, $12 to $15.
$12 to $15; minimum, $5, or act
Specified injuries, 50 to 60 per
tual wages if less than $5; not
cent of wages for fixed periods;
over $5 thereafter for 150 weeks
weekly maxim um, $12 to $15;
in certain cases only; total not
minimum, $5, or actual wages if
over $5,000. (b) 50 to 60 per
less than $5.
cent of wages during disability;
maxim um, 300 weeks; weekly
m axim um, $12 to $15; minimum ,
$5, or actua 1wages i f less than $5.
(a) $3,600; $1,200 additional if wife Lump sums based upon schedule
of paym ents for permanent total
and $600 for each child under 16.
If single, $600 for each dependent
disability proportioned to loss
parent; m axim um , $6,000. (b)
of earning capacity; maximum.
50 per cent of wages during disa
$4,800. Specified injuries, fixed
lum p sums, varying w ith conju
bility; m axim um , 6 months.
gal condition and number of
children; disfigurement, $240 for
loss of ear, $480 for loss of nose.
(a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during 50 per cent of wage loss during
disability; m axim um, $4,000.
disability; m axim um . $4,000.
(a) 65 per cent of wages for 240
weeks, then 40 per cent for life.
(6) 65 per cent of wages during
disability; not over 210 weeks
nor over 3 tim es annual earnings.
2
Not provided for in compensation law.
Alabama.
(a) No commission. (6)
Mine inspector (who is
also ex officio labor com
missioner).2
31.2
Alaska.
(a) No commission.
Mine inspector.2
52.4
Arizona.
76.2
California.
(6)
Colorado.
How election is made.
Employments covered.
Insurance.
State.
Compensation benefits.
Suits for damages.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
If both employer and
employee come un
der act.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Waiting period.
Maximum and minimum
weekly
compensation
paym ents.
Maximum period.
Death.
(а) Dependents.
(б) N o dependents.
Total disability.
(а) Permanent.
(б) Temporary.
Medical and surgical aid.
Time for notice and Administrative system.
claim.
Public.
Idaho. Ch. 81. Approved
Mar. 16, 1917. In effect
Jan. 1,1918.
Compulsory, as to all em ploy
ments conducted for gain except
farm labor, domestic service,
out-workers, casual employ
m ent, charitable institutions,
and employees receiving over
$2,400 a year. Voluntary, as to
excepted employm ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees except
officials, and those
receiving a salary
over $2,400.
Employers must in
sure in State fund
or provide self-in
surance.
N ot permitted.
Approved substitute
schemes permitted
if bjnefits e q u a l
those of act; waivers
forbidden.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to w illful
intention to injure self or an
other, or intoxication. Occupa
tional diseases specifically ex
cluded.
1 week.
D eath, 20 to 55 per
cent. D isability, 55
per cent.
D eath and temporary
to ta l disability: Maxi
m um $12. m inimum $6,
or actual wages if.le ss
than $8; others, m axi
m um $12, minimum $6.
Death, 400 weeks.
Per
manent to ta l disability,
life.
Temporary to ta l
disability, 400 weeks.
Partial disability, 150
weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um, (a) 55 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; w eekly m axim um $12;
$100: 45 to 55 per cent of wages
minimum $6; thereafter $6 a
to widow or dependent widower
week for life, (b) 55 per cent of
for 400 w eeks; w eekly m axi
wages during disability; m axi
mum $12; m inimum $6, or ac
m um , 400 weeks; w eekly m axi
tu a l wages if less than $6. (6)
mum $12; minim um $6, or ac
B urial expenses, m axim um
tu al wages if less than $6.
$100; also $1,000 to be paid into
industrial administration fund.
55 per cent of wage loss, m axi
mum 150 w’eeks; benefits and
wages to be not less than $6 a
week. Specified injuries, 55 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
w eekly m axim um , $12.
Dis
figurement compensable if re
sulting in decreased ability to
obtain employm ent.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service; hospital bene
fit funds permitted in lieu of
above. Charges lim ited to those
prevailing in th e community.
Notice as soon as prac Industrial
board.
ticable; claim in 1
year.
accident
Illinois. P. 3If. Approved
June 10, 1911. In effect
May 1, 1912. N ew act, p.
335, 1913. Amended, 1915,
1917,1919.
Compulsory. as to “ extrahazard
ous ” employm ents enumerated;
farm labor, and persons not in
usual course of employer's busi
ness excepted. Voluntary, as to
excepted employm ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees except
officials.
Employers m ust in
sure in private com
panies, or provide
self-insurance.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
A p p r o v e d sch em es
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
No waiver of pro
visions of act as to
amount of compen
sation w ithout ap
proval of board.
Accidental injuries arising out of
and in course of employm ent.
1 week. None if disa
bility continues for
4 weeks or more.
D isability, 50 to Go
per cent.
Maximum, $12 to $15.
Minimum, $7 to $10.
D eath, 416 weeks.
Per
m anent total disability,
life. Permanent partial
disability, 8 years. Tem
porary disability, dur
ing its continuance.
(a) 4 years' earnings; maxim um, (a) 50 to 65 per cent of earnings for
8 years; weekly maxim um $12
$4,000; minim um , $1,850.
(6)
to $15; minim um $7 to $10;
Burial expenses, maxim um,
thereafter 8 per cent of death
$150.
benefits for life, minim um $10 a
month. (&) 50 to 65 per cent
of earnings during disability;
w eekly m axim um , $12 to $15;
m inimum , $7 to $10; total not
over $4,000.
50 to 65 per cent of wage loss dur
ing disability, not over 8 years;
w eekly maxim um $12 to $15.
Specified injuries, 50 to 65 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
w eek ly m aximum, $12 to $15;
m inimum , $7 to $10; disfigure
m ent of hand, head, or face,
maxim um one-fourth death
benefits.
First aid, medical, surgical, and
hospital service fo r 8 weeks;
maxim um, $200; full hospital
service while compensation is
payable; additiona 1medical and
surgical aid as long as hospital
treatment is required.
Notice as soon as prac
ticable, not later
than 30 days; claim
in 0 months.
Industrial
sion.
commis
Indiana. Ch. 106. Approved
Mar. 8, 1915. In effect
Sept. 1, 1915. Amended,
1917,1919.
Compulsory, as to mining. Elec
tive, as to a ll employm ents ex
cept farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness, and railroad employees
engagedintrainservice. Volun
tary, as to excepted employ
ments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees.
Electing
employers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice,
posted or served,
and filed w ith in
dustrial board.
Presumed in absence
of written notice
served on employer
and filed w ith in
dustrial board.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
service, and con
fails to insure risk.
tributory negligence.
Defenses remain........... A p p r o v e d sch em es
permitted if benefits
eaual those of act.
A ll other waivers
forbidden.
1 w eek___
D eath, total disabil
it y , and specified
injuries, 55 per cent.
Partial disability,
50 per cent.
Basic wage, m axim um,
$24; m inimum , $10.
Death and partial disabil
ity , 300 weeks.
T otal
disability, 500 weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um,
$100; 55 per cent of wages for 300
weeks; weekly basic w a g em a x i
mum $24; minim um $10; total
not to exceed $5,000. (b) Burial
expenses, m axim um $100.
(a) (b) 55 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 500 weeks;
w eekly basic wage, m axim um
$24; minim um $10; total not
over $5,000.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability; not over 300 weeks;
basic wage, maxim um $24; mini
m um SI 0. Specifiedinjuries, 55
per cent wages for fixed periods;
basic wage, m axim um $24; mini
m um $10; permanent disfigure
m ent, not over 200 weeks.
Necessary medical, surgical, and
hospital service for SO days;
longer at option of employer;
employee m ust accept unless
otherwise ordered by board;
30 days’ additional treatm ent
if necessary in opinion of board;
charges lim ited to those pre
vailing in th e community.
Notice in 30 days;
claim in 2 years.
Industrial board...
Iowa. Ch. 147. Approved
Mar. 18, 1913. In effect
July 1, 1914.
Amended,
1917,1919.
Elective, as to all employments
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees, those
not in course of employer's busi
ness, and clerks not subject to
hazard of the industry.
E lecting employers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of notice posted in
establishment and
filed w ith industrial
commissioner.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and in
d u str ia l com m issioner.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and con
tributory negligence
unless willful and
w ith inten t to cause
injury, or due to
intoxication.
D eath: Maximum, $15;
m inimum , $6.
Disa
bility: Maximum, $15;
minimum $6, or actual
wages if less than $6.
Death and temporary
to ta l disability, 300
weeks. Permanent to ta l
disability, 400 weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um,
$100; 60 per cent of wages for
300 weeks; weekly maxim um
$15; minimum $6.
(6) Last
sickness and burial expenses,
m axim um $100.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; w eekly maxim um $15;
minimum $6, or actual wages if
less than $6. (&) Same for not
over 300 weeks. Compensation
increased b y two-thirds for 5th,
6th, and 7th weeks of disability.
Specified injuries, 60 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; pro
portionate for others; weekly
m axim um $15; minimum $6, or
actual wages if less than $6.
Reasonable medical,surgical, and
hospital service for 4 weeks, if
requested by employee, court,
or commissioner; maxim um
$100; $100 additional in excep
tional cases.
Notice in 15 days; if
in 30 days, not
barred except as to
e x t e n t e m p lo y e r
was prejudiced; bar
absolute after 90
days.
Industrial
sioner.
Kansas.
Ch. 218.
A p
proved Mar. 14, 1911. In
effect Jan. 1,1912. Amend
ed, 1913,1917,1919.
Elective, as to “ especially danger
ous” em ploym ents enumerated
conducted for gain except those
having less th an 5 employees,
farm labor, and those not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness ; all m ines covered. Volun
tary, as to excepted em ploy
m ents.
Elective, as to all em ploym ents
except those having less than
3 employees, farm labor and
domestic service. Voluntary, as
to excepted employm ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees except
firemen and police
men in pension
funds (city school
teachers exem pted
b y ruling of com
missioner).
Elective, as to work
men on county and
m unicipal work.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent unless due to willful
misconduct, intentional selfinflicted injury, intoxication,
and willful failure to use safety
appliances or to obey safety
law s, or commission of a crime.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally excepted.
Personal injuries arising out of
and in course of employm ent,
unless due to willful intention
to injure self or another, intoxi
cation, or willful act of a third
party.
Occupational diseases
specifically excluded.
Not required.
Presumed in absence
of notice posted in
establishment and
filed w ith secretary
of sta te.
Presumed in absence
of written notice
filed w ith employer
and secretary of
state.
Assumed risk, fellow N ot permitted.
service, and con
tributory negligence.
1 w e e k ...
Disability, 60 per cent. Disability: Maximum, $15; D eath, 3 years' earnings,
minimum , $6.
payable as court m ay
Specifiedinjuries, 50
order.
D isability, 8
per cent.
years.
(o) 3 years’ earnings; m axim um,
$3,800; minimum , $1,400.
(6)
B urial expenses, maxim um,
$150.
(a) (b) 60 per cent of earnings dur
ing disability, not over 8 years:
weekly maxim um $15; mini
m um $6.
60 per cent of wage loss during Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 50 days, if
disability, m axim um 8 years;
demanded by employee; m axi
specified injuries, 50 per cent of
mum, $150.
wages for fixed periods; weekly
m axim um $12; TninimnTn $6.
Elective, as to all m u
nicipal corporations
having 3 or more
employees. Volun
tary, as to others.
Electing employers
m ust insure in Ken
tu ck y Em ployees’
Insurance Associa
tion or other private
companies, or pro
vide self-insurance.
B y writing filed with
the commission and
posted in the estab
lishm ent.
B y signed notice filed
w ith employer.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and con
tributory negligence.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent except when going to
and from work, unless due to in
toxication, deliberate intention
to cause injury, or willful failure
to use safeguards provided by
statute or furnished b y em
ployer.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless self-inflicted,
due to willful misconduct or in
toxication.
Occupational dis
eases or injuries due to preexist
ing disease excluded.
1 w eek.
65 per cent
Kentucky. Approved Mar.
23, 1916. In effect Aug. 1,
1916,191S.
B y employee.
Permitted if employei
fails to insure risk.
Perm itted if injury is
due to deliberate in
tention of employer,
u n law ful e m p loy
m ent of minors, or
failure to file evi
dence as to insur
ance.
Defenses remain ex
cept assumed risk
if employer violates
safety statutes; no
presumption of em
ployer’s negligence.
A p p r o v e d sch em es
permitted, but no
reduction of liability
allowed. A ll other
waivers forbidden.
Defenses remain un
less injurv is caused
by willful negligence
of employer.
A p p ro v ed sch em es
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
B lind e m p lo y e e s
m ay waive right to
c o m p e n s a tio n or
damages.
Defenses remain..
A p p ro v ed sch em es
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
Louisiana. No. 20.
A p
proved June 18, 1914. In
effect Jan. 1,1915. Amend
ed, 1916,1918.
Elective, as to “ hazardous ” em
ploym ents enumerated, or as
agreed upon or determined by
court, except employm ents not
conducted for purpose of em
ployer’s business.
Voluntary,
as to other em ploym ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees except
officials.
N ot required.................
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employee.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employer.
Assumed risk, fellow N ot permitted.
service, and con
tributory negligence.
Maine. Ch. 295. Approved
Apr. 1, 1915.
In effect
Jan. 1, 1916.
Amended,
1917,1919.
Elective, as to a ll em ploym ents,
except those having regularly
less than 6 employees, farm
labor, domestic service, logging
operations, casual employees,
and those not in usual course of
employer’s business.
Volun
tary, as to exem pted employees.
Compulsory, as to all
employees of State,
counties, and cities,
except officials. Vol
untary, as to towns.
Electing
employers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Writing filed w ith
c o m m is s io n a n d
posted in establish
ment.
Presumed, if employer
elects, in absence of
w ritten notice to
employer filed w ith
commission.
Assumed risk, fellow N ot perm itted.............. Defenses remain.........
service, and con
tributory negligence.
Defenses rem ain...
1 Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective States have acccpted the act.
172308—20. (To face page 130.) No. 2.
Per cent of wages.
No contract m ay re
lieve employer from
liability.
E xisting
approved
schemes m ay be
continued; waivers
forbidden.
2 weeks.
Personal injuries b y accident aris 1 week. None if disa
bility continues for
ing out of and in course of em
C weeks or more.
ploym ent, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, intoxication, deliberate
failure to use safeguards, or de
liberate breach of safety laws.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally excluded.
Personal injuries b y accident aris 10 days..
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent unless duo to willful
inten tion to injure self or an
other, or intoxication w ithout
employer's knowledge.
) p ercen t............
Death, 25 to 55 per
cent. D isability, 55
per cent.
60 per cent.
Maximum,
mum, $5.
$12.
Mini-
D eath, 335 weeks. Total (a) Burial expenses, maxim um
$75; 65 per cent of wages for 335
disability, 8 years. Par
weeks; weekly maxim um $12;
tial disability, 335 weeks.
minimum $5; to ta l not over
$4,000.
(6) Burial expenses,
maxim um $75; and $100 to
representative of deceased.
Maximum, $18.
Mini
mum $3, or actual wages
if less than*$3.
D eath, 300 weeks.
Per
manent total disability,
400 weeks. Temporary
to ta l and partial disa
bility, 300 weeks.
(a) Expenses of burial and last
sickness, maxim um $100; 25 to
55 per cent of wages for 300
w’eeks; weekly m axim um $18;
minimum $3, or actual wages if
le ss than $3. (6) Expenses of
burial and la st sickness, m axi
m um, $100.
Maximum, $15.
m um , $6.
D eath, 300 weeks. Total
disability, 500 weeks.
Partia 1 disability, 300
weeks.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for 300
weeks, but not over $3,500;
weekly m axim um, $15; mini
m um , $6. (6) Expenses of
burial and last sickness, m axi
m um , $200.
Mini-
If permanent. 65 per cent of wases
m ultiplied by percentage of dis
ability; if temporary, 65 per
cent of wage loss; maximum
period 335 weeks; w eekly m axi
m um $12; to ta l not over $4,000.
Specified injuries, 65 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
m axim um $12; minim um $5.
Compensation for disfigurement
if it impairs future usefulness or
occupational opportunities.
(a) 55 per cent of wages for 400 55 psr cent of wage loss during
disability, not over 300 weeks;
weeks; weekly m axim um , SIS;
w eekly maxim um $18. Speci
m inim um $3, or actual wages
if less than $3. (6) 50 per cent
fied inj uries, 55 per cent of wages
of wages during disability, not
for fixed maxim um periods;
over 300 weeks; w eekly m axi
w eekly m axim um $18, m ini
mum $18; minim um $3, or ac
m um $3, or a ctu al wages if less
tu al wages if less than $3.
than $3. Facial or head disfig
urement, not over 100 weeks.
(a) (b) 60 per cent of wages during 60 per cent of wa^e loss during
disability, not over 500 weeks;
disability, w eekly maxim um,
weekly m axim um , $15; m ini
$15 for not over 300 weeks.
m um , $6; to ta l not over $4,200.
Specified injuries, 60 per cent
of wages for fixed periods; there
after 60 per cent of wage loss for
not over 300 weeks; weekly
m axim um , $15; minimum , $6.
(a) (b) 65 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 8 years;
w eekly maxim um $12; mini
mum $5; to ta l not over $5,000.
Accident reports required.
Partial disability.
Private.
B y employer.
now compensation claims are
settled.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 90 days, un
less board fixes other period;
maxim um $100; m axim um in
case of operation for hernia, $200;
charges lim ited to those pre
vailing in the community.
Per
Accident-prevention work
cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (6) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
to a ct.1
V oluntary agreement approved A ll employers m ust report all ac (a) Industrial accident
cidents of 1 day’s disability to
by board; disputed cases m ay
board. (6) Inspector of
industrial accident board w ith
m ines.2
be subm itted to arbitration
in 48 hours; supplem entary
committee of 3 persons, ap
report after 60 days or upon
pointed b y board, composed of
termination of disability; final
representatives of each party
report w ithin 60 days after
and member of board or dep
termination of disability.
uty; review b y full board;
appeal to court upon questions
of law .
V oluntary agreement, 7 days after A ll employers w ithin provisions (a) No provision. (&) De
partm ent of labor;2
of act m ust report a ll injuries
injury; disputed cases settled
mine inspector.2
of more than 1 week’s disability
by arbitrator appointed b y com
to industrial commission; fa ta l
mission; in case of death or per
manent disability, b y arbitra
accidents at once; others once a
m onth; supplem entary report
tion committee of 3 persons
composed of representatives of
of permanent disability cases.
each party and a commissioner,
upon application of either
party; review b y full commis
sion; appeal to courts upon
question of law.
Voluntary agreement, 7 days after A ll employers m ust report all in- (a) Industrial board. (6)
j uries of more than 1 day’s dis
No provision.
injury, approved b y board; dis
ability w ithin 1 week to indus
puted cases settled b y board or
trial board; supplem entary re
member thereof, after hearing
port after 60 days or upon
upon application of either party;
termination of disability.
review by full board; appeal to
courts upon questions of law.
State.
68.7
Idaho.
55.4
Illinois.
7 9 .4
Indiana.
Voluntary agreement, 12 days
after injury, approved b y com
missioner; disputed cases settled
by arbitration com m ittee of 3
persons composed of represent
atives of each party and the
commissioner; review b y com
missioner.
A ll employers must report all ac
cidents of more than 1 day’s
disability w ithin 48 hours to
industrial commissioner; sup
plementary report after 60 days
or upon termination of disabil
ity .
(a) No provision, (b) B u
reau of labor ^statistics;2
mine inspectors.2
6 2 .7
Iowa.
Voluntary agreement; disputed
cases settled by local arbitration
committee representing each
party or b y an arbitrator se
lected b y committee; in case of
failure, b y an arbitrator ap
pointed b y court, or by court.
A ll employers affected b y act
m ust report annually to factory
inspector “ such reasonable par
ticulars as to accidents as State
factory inspector m ay require.”
(a) No commission; (5)
department of labor
and industry.2
36.9
Kansas.
Notice as soon as prac Workmen’s compen V oluntary agreement approved
by board; disputed cases settled
ticable; claim in 1
sation board.
year.
by board, a member of sam e,
A ll employers subject to act m ust
report all injuries of more than 1
day’s disability to workmen’s
compensation board w ithin 1
week; supplem entary report
after 60 days or upon termina
tion of disability.
(a) No provision. (&) Mine
inspectors;2 Kentucky
Em ployees' Insurance
Association.
GO. 2
Kentucky.
com m is
Notice in 10 days; Courts.
claim in 6 months.
or referee appointed by it; re
view by full board; appeal to
courts.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 6 months;
hospitalservice unless employee
proceedings must be
refuses to allowi t to be furnishbegun w ithin 1 year.
edbyemployer; maximum,$150;
charges governed by workman’s
station.
Courts.
Voluntary agreement approved
by court; disputed cases settled
by court after hearing.
N o provis
(a) N o commission. (6)
Now Orleans factory in
spector.2
35.2
Louisiana.
Reasonable medical and hospital
service fo r SO days, m axim um ,
$100; additional service if na
ture of injury requires.
Industrial
accident
commission.
Voluntary agreement approved
by commission; disputed cases
settled by commissioner after
hearing upon application of
either party; appeal to court
upon questions of law.
A ll assenting employers m ust re
port a ll accidents promptly to
industrial accident commission;
insurers m ust furnish informa
tion requested by commission
or insurance commissioner.
(a) No provision. (6) D e
partment of labor and
industry.2
7 2 .9
Maine.
* Not provided for in compensation law.
Notice in 30 days;
claim in 1 year.
How election is made.
Employments covered.
Insurance.
State.
Maryland. Ch. 800. Ap•proved Apr. 16, 1914. In
effect N ov. 1,1914. A m end
ed, 1916.
Massachusetts. Ch. 751. Ap
proved July 28, 1911. In
effect July 1,1912. A m end
ed, 1912, 1913. 1914, 1915,
1916,1917,1918,1919.
Michigan. No. 10. Approved
Mar. 20, 1912. In effect
Sept. 1, 1912. Amended,
1913,1915,1917,1919.
By employer.
B y employee.
Suits for damages.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
If both employer and
employee come un
der act.
Private.
Public.
Compulsory, as to “ extrahazard
o us” employm ents enumerated
conducted for gain; act does not
apply to farm labor, dom estic
service, country blacksmiths,
wheelwrights, or sim ilar rural
em ploym ents, casual em ploy
ees. and those receiving over
$2,000 a year. Voluntary, as to
nonhazardous employm ents.
Elective, as to a 11employm ents, ex
cept farm labor, dom estic serv
ice, and persons not in usual
course of employer’s business.
Voluntary, as to excepted em
ploym ents.
Compulsory, as to all
workmen employed
for wages and en
gaged in extrahaza r d o u s em ploy
ments. Voluntary,
as to other employ
ments.
Employers m ust in
sure in State fund or
private companies,
or provide self-in
surance.
Compulsory, as to lab o r e r s , workmen,
and mechanics of
State. Elective, as
to counties, cities,
towns, or districts
having power of tax
ation.
Elective, as to all employm ents, ex Compulsory, as to all
employees, except
cept farm labor, dom estic serv
officials.
ice, and employees not in usual
course of employer’s business.
E 1 e c ting employers
m ust insure in Mas
sachusetts Employ
ees’ Insurance Asso
ciation or other pri
vate companies.
B y subscrib i n g t o
State association or
insuring in o t h e r
companies.
Presumed in absence
of written notice, if
employer insures.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence.
N ot permitted..
Electing e m ^ lo y e r s
m ust insure in State
fund or p r i v a t e
companies, or pro
vide self-insurance.
W riting filed w ith in
dustrial a c c i d e n t
board.
Presumed in absence
of written notice, if
employer elects.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence.
Permitted if employer
is in default on in
surance premiums.
Presumed in absence
of written notice
posted in establish
m ent and filed w ith
commissioner of la
bor.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employer and filed
w itn commissioner
of labor.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contribu t o r y negligence
unless willful.
N ot perm itted.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Compensation benefits.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
W aiting.period.
Per cent of wages.
Maximum and m inimum
weekly
compensation
paym ents.
Maximum period.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(b) Temporary.
Partial disability.
50 percent.
Death: No weekly m axi
m um . T otal disability:
Maximum, $12; m ini
mum, $5, oractual wages
if less than $5. Perma
nent partial disability:
Maximum, $12.
Death, 416 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life.
Temporary total
disability, 312 weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$75; 50 per cent, of wages for 8
years; m axim um , $4,250; m ini
mum , $1,000.
(b) Burial ex
penses, m axim um , $75, unless
estate sufficient to defray same.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for life;
weekly m axim um , $12; m ini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5; to ta l not over $5,000.
(b) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 6 years;
weekly m axim um , $12; mini
mum, $5. or actual wages if less
than $5; total not over $3,750.
If permanent, 50 per cent of wage
loss; w eekly m axim um , $12;
to ta l not over $3,000. If tempo
rary, 50 per cent of wage loss,
total not over $3,500. Specified
injuries, 50 per cent of wages for
fixed periods; weekly m axim um,
$12; to ta ln o t over $3,000.
Such m edical, surgical, or hospi
ta l service as m ay be required
by commission: m axim um , $150.
Charges lim itedto those prevail
ing in the com m unity.
Notice of accident in
10 days; of death in
30 days, unless suffi
cient reason; claim
in 30 days.
Industrial a c c i d ent
commission.
Application by employee to com
mission who render award in ac
cordance w ith facts, or com m is
sion m ay appoint arbitration
com m ittee of 3 persons composed
of representatives of each party
and a commissioner or deputy;
appeal from com m ittee to com
mission; appeal to courts.
All employers m ust report all acci
dents to industrial accident com
mission a t once. Commission
m ay require additional reports.
Defenses remain.........
W a i v e r s forbidden;
employers m ust in
sure.
Personal injuries arising out of and
in course of em ploym ent, unless
due to serious and willful m is
conduct. (Occupational diseases
included by decision of court.)
10 days..
66§ p ercen t..................
D eath and specified in
juries: M aximum, $10;
m inim um , $4. Others:
Maximum, $16; m ini
mum, $7.
Death and total disabil
ity , 500 weeks; partial
disability, none.
(a) (b) 661 percent of wages during
disability, not over 500 weeks;
weekly m axim um , $16; m ini
m um , $7; total not over $4,000.
Notice as soon as prac
ticable; claim in 6
months.
Industrial a c c i d ent
board.
Voluntary agreement approved
by board; disputed cases set
tled by member of board; ap
peal to full board; certain cases
taken direct to board; appeal
to court upon questions of law.
E xisting schemes m ay
be continued, but
no reduction in lia
bility a l l o w e d ;
waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries arising out of and
in course of em ploym ent, unless
due to intentional and willful
misconduct. (Occupationaldis
eases excluded by court.)
1 week. N one if dis
ability continues 6
weeks or more.
60 p ercen t.
M aximum,
m um, $7.
Mini
Death, 300 weeks. D is
ability, 500 weeks.
66? per cent of wage loss during
disability; w eekly m axim um ,
$16; total not over $4,000. Speci
fied injuries, 66$ per cent of
wages for fixed penods in addi
tion to all other compensation;
weekly m axim um , $10; m ini
m um, $4.
60 per cent of wage loss during
disability, for not over 500
weeks; w eekly m axim um , $14.
Specified injuries, COper cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maxim um , $14; minim um , $7.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for % weeks, or
longer in unusual cases, at dis
cretion of board.
Defenses remain..
(a) 66? per cent of wages for 500
weeks; weekly m axim um , $10;
m inimum , $4; to ta l not over
$4,000. (b) Expenses of burial
and last sickness, m axim um ,
$100; and $100 additional to cre
ate special fund for second in
juries.
(a) CO per cent of wages for 300
weeks; weekly m axim um , $14;
minimum , $7. (b) Expenses of
burial and last sickness, m axi
mum, $200.
Reasonable medical and hospital
service, for 90 days.
Notice in 3 months:
claim in 6 months; 2
years if disability
develops 6 months
after date of injury.
Industrial a c c i d ent
board.
All employers m ust report all in (a) N o p r o v i s i o n . (b)
juries to industrial accident
Board of labor and in
Doard w ithin 48 hours; supple
dustries:2 district po
m entary report after 60 days or
lice, M a s s a c h u s e t t s
Employees’ In su ra n ce
termination of disability: in
surer m u st report compensa
Association.
tion paid w ithin 60 days after
termination of disability.
A ll employers m ust report a ll in (a) N o p r o v i s i o n . (b)
juries to industrial accident
Department of labor.*
ooard on eighth day after occur
rence; supplem ental report of
deaths 'within 14 days.
Employer m ay insure
or m aintain fund,
but m ay not reduce
liability fixed by
law .
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless intentionally
self-inflicted, duo to intoxica
tion, or caused by fellow em
ployee for personal reason. (Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
im plication.)
1 w eek.
D eath, 30 to 6C§ per
c e n t . D isability,
66§ per cent.
Maximum, $15.
Mini
m um , $6.50, or actual
wages if less than $6.50.
D eath, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
550 weeks. Temporary
total and partial disabil
ity , 300 y eek s.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$100: 30 to 66$ per cent of wages
for 300 weeks; weekly m axim um,
$15; m inimum , $5.50, or actual
wages if less than $6.50. (b)
Expenses of burial and last sick
ness, m axim um , $100; and $100
additional to create special fund
for second injuries.
66? per cent of wage loss during
disability, fornot over 300 weeks;
weekly m axim um , $15. Speci-
Reasonable m edical and surgical
treatment for 90 days; m axim um,
$100; upon request of employee,
court m ay allow additional
treatm ent, if need is shown.
Charges lim ited to those pre
vailing in the com m unity.
Notice in 14 days; if in
30 days not barred
except as to extent
employer was preju
diced; bar absolute
after 90 days. Actionmust be brought
w ithin 1 year.
L im ited supervis i o n
by commissioner of
labor; disputed cases
settled by courts.
Death, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary total
and permanent partial
disability, 400 weeks.
Temporary partial dis
ability, 200 weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$100; 66$ per cent of wages for
300 weeks; weekly m axim um
$15, m inim um $6. (b) Burial
expenses, m axim um , $100, and
expenses of last sickness, m axi
m um , $200.
(a) 66$ per cent of wages for 400
weeks; w eekly m axim um , $15;
m inimum , $6.50, or actual wages
if less than $6.50; not over $6.50
thereafter for 150 weeks. (b)
66$ per cent of wages during dis
ability, for not over 300 weeks;
weekly m axim um , $15; mini
mum, $6.50, or actual wages if
less than $6.50.
(a) 66$ per cent of wages for 240
weeks; 40 per cent of wages
thereafter for life; weekly m axi
mum $15, minim um $6. (b)
66$ per cent of wages during dis
ability for not over 400 weeks;
weekly m axim um , $15; m ini
mum, $6, or actual wages if less
than $6.
Voluntary agreement approved by
board; disputed cases settled by
arbitration com m ittee of 3 per
sons composed of representa
tives of each party and a m em
ber or deputy of board; appeal
from com m ittee to full board;
certain cases taken direct to
board; appeal to court upon
questions oflaw .
Voluntary agreement approved by A ll industrial employers m ust re
port fatal and serious accidents,
court; commissioner of labor,
within 48 hours, other tabulatupon request, shall advise em
able accidents w ithin 14 days to
ployee and assist in adjusting
commissioner of labor.
differences; disputed cases set
tled by court; appeal to supreme
court upon questions of law.
If temporary, 66$ percent of wage
loss for not over 200 weeks;
weekly m axim um $12. Speci
fied injuries, 66$ per cent of
wages for fixed periods; others
proportionate, but not over 400
weeks; weekly m axim um , $15;
minim um , $6. Disfigurement,
TnnTiTnnm, $750.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 8 weeks;
m axim um $200; charges lim ited
to those prevailing in the com
m unity.
N otice as soon as prac
ticable; claim in 6
months.
Workmen’s compen
sation commission.
Voluntary agreement after 7 days
approved oy commission; dis
puted cases settled by commis
sion or any member or referee
thereof; review by full commis
sion; appeal to courts on ques
tions of law.
D eath, 400 weeks. Per
m anent total disability,
life. Temporary total
disability, 300 weeks.
Partial disability, 150
weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$75; 30 to 50 per cent of wages
for 400 weeks; weekly m axi
m um , $12.50; minimum , $6, or
actual wages if less than $6. (b)
Burial expenses,m axim um , $75.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly m axim um ,$12.50;
minimum , $6, or actual wages if
1ess than $6; thereafter $5 a week
for life. (6) 50 per cent of wages
during disability, for not over
300 weeks; weekly m axim um ,
$12.50; m inim um , $6, oractual
wases if less than $6.
(a) (b) 66$ percent of wages for 300
weeks; w eekly m axim um , $15;
minimum , $6, or actual wages if
less than $6; thereafter 45 per
cent of wages during disability;
weekly m axim um , $12; m ini
m um , S4.50, or actual wages if
less than $4.50.
50 per cent of wage loss, m axi
m um , 150 weeks if permanent,
50 weeks if temporary; weekly
benefits not over $6.25. Speci
fied injuries, 50 percent of wages
for fixed periods; w eekly m axi
m um , $12.50; minim um , $6, or
actual wages if less than $6.
Reasonable medical and hospital
service for 2 weeks; m axim um .
$50, unless there is a hospital
fund; special operating fee of $50
in case of hernia.
Notice in 60 days;
claim in 6 months.
Industrial a c c i dent
board.
Reasonable m edical and hospital
66$ per cent of wage loss for not
service unless employee refuses
over 300 weeks; weekly m axi
such treatment; m axim um, $200;
m um , $15. Specified injuries,
employer not liable for aggra
66$ per cent of wages for fixed
vation of injury for which he is
periods; w eekly m axim um , $15;
not allowed to furnish medical
minimum , $6, or actual wages if
service.
less than $6. Disfigurement, 25
weeks for loss of ear, 50 weeks
for loss of nose.
Reasonable medical, surgical, or
If permanent, 50 per cent of wages
hospital treatm ent for 90 days,
lor periods proportioned to disa
which m ay be extended to 1
bility, m axim um , 100 months:
year by commission. Trans
m onthly m axim um , $60. If
portation
furnished. Charges
temporary, 60 per cent of wage
lim ited to those prevailing in
loss, for n ot over 60 months;
com m unity.
monthly m axim um , $40. Speci
fied injuries 50 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; monthly m axi
m um , $60; m inim um , $30. r a
cial disfigurement, not over 12
months.
* Not provided for in compensation law.
N otice a s soon a s prac
ticable; claim in 6
months; bar abso
lute after 1 year.
N otice of injury in 30
days; death in 60
days; claim in 90
days for disability;
1 year for death.
$14.
N ot required.,
Missouri. Approved Apr. 28,
1919.
Elective, as to all employm ents ex
cept those having regularly less
than 5 employees, farm labor,
domestic service, including fam
ily chauffeurs, casual em ploy
ments not incidental to em
ployer’s business, outworkers,
and employees receiving over
S3,000 a year. Voluntary, as to
excepted employm ents.
Compulsory, as to
State and political
su b d iv isio n s a n d
c o r p o r a tio n s , but
elective as toem plovees thereof. Offi
cials and employees
earning over $3,000
a year excluded.
Electing e m p 1 o yers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of written notice,
filed w ith the com
mission and posted
in establishment.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
commission and em
ployer.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence.
N ot permitted unless
employer fails to in
sure risk.
Defenses rem ain..
Approved s c h e m e s '
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
Waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent unless due to willful
misconduct including self-in
flicted injury, intoxication, and
willful failure to use safety appli
ances or to obey safety laws or
rules.
Occupational diseases
specifically excluded.
1 week. N one if dis
ability continues for
more than 6 weeks.
M o n t a n a . Ch. 96. Ap
proved Mar. 8, 1915. In
effect July 1,1915. Amend
ed, 1919.
Elective, as to “ inherently hazard
ous” employments enumerated,
except farin labor, domestic
service, and casual employees
(defined as not in usual course of
of employer’s business.) Volun
tary, as to nonhazardous em
ploym ents, but insurance in
State fund necessary.
Elective, as to all employm ents ex
cept farm labor, dom estic serv
ice, outworkers, casual em ploy
ees, and these not employed for
employer’s business or profit.
Voluntary, as to excepted em
ploym ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, i n c luding those of public
contractors.
Electing e m p lo y e r s
m ust insure in State
f u n d o r p r iv a te
companies, or pro
vide self-insurance.
W r i t i n g filed with
board and posted in
establishment.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and filed
witn board.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contribu t o r y negligence
unless willful.
Perm itted if employer
in State fund is in
default on insurance
premiums.
Defenses rem ain..
Waivers forbidden;
hospital fund m ay
be maintained.
Injuries from fortuitous event aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent. Occupational dis
eases specifically excluded.
2 w eeks.
Compulsory, as to all
em ployees e x c ep t
officials.
Electing e m p 1o y ers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of notice posted in
establishment and
filed w ith compens a t io n c o m m is
sioner.
Presumed in absence
of notice to em
ployer and filed with
compensation com
missioner.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence un
less willful or due to
intoxication.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Defenses remain..
Existing schemes m ay
be continued if bene
fits equal those of
act.
Waivers for
bidden.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless duo to willful
negligence (deliberate and reck
less indifference to safety or in
toxication). Occupational dis
eases specifically excluded.
1 week. N one i f disa
bility continues for
6 weeks or more.
6C§ p ercen t............
Maximum, $15.
Mini
m um , $6, or actual
wages if less than $6.
D eath, 350 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary total
disability, during its
continuance. P a r t i a l
disability, 300 weeks.
(a) Expenses of burial, m axim um ,
$150; 66$ per cent of wages for 350
weeks; weekly m axim um , $15;
minimum, $6, or actual wages if
less than $6. (b) Expenses of
burial, m axim um , $150.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept farm labor, domestic serv
ice, and casual employees not in
usualcourse of employer’s busi
ness. Voluntary, as to exem pted
employments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, includ
ing those of public
contractors.
E l e c t i n g employers
m ust insure in State
fund.
W r i t i n g filed with
commission; notice
of rejection to be
posted in establish
ment.
Presumedi n absence
of notice to employ
er and filed w ith
commission.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence un
less willful or due to
intoxication.
Permitted if employer
is in default on in
surance premiums.
Defenses remain ex
cept assumed risk
due to employer’s
violation o f safety
laws; no presump
tion of employer’s
negligence.
Waivers fo r b id d e n .
Hospital fund m ay
be maintained.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, or sustained while intoxi
cated.
1 week. None I f disa
bility continues for
2 weeks or more.
Death, 15 to 60$ per Death: Maximum basic
cent. T otal and
wage. $120 a month.
temporary p a r t ia l
Disability: M o n t h l y
disability, 60 per
m axim um , $40 to $72;
m in im u m , $30.
cent;permanent par
tial and specified in
juries, 50 per cent.
Death, during life or until
remarriage of widow or
d e p e n dent widower.
T otal disability, during
its continuance. Partial
disability, 100 months.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$125; widow or dependent w id
ower, 30 per cent of wages until
death or remarriage; 10 per cent
additional for each child; total
not over 6G$ per cent; m onthly
maxim um basic wage, $120.
Also burialcxpenses, maxim um
$125, in case of death of depend
ent. (b) Burial expenses, m axi
mum, $125.
Nevada. Ch. 183. Approved
Mar. 24,1911. In effect July
1, 1911. N ew act, ch. I l l ,
1913. Amended, 1915,1917,
1919.
i Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective States have accepted the act.
172308— 20. (To face page 130.) No. 3.
Accident reports required.
Per
Accident-prevention work cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (b) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
toact.i
2 weeks; 1 week if dis
ability is total and
permanent.
Elective, as to employ
ees oi counties, cit
ies, towns, villages,
and school districts,
except officials.
Nebraska.
Ch. 19S.
Ap
proved Apr. 21, 1913. In
effect Dec. 1,1914. Amend
ed, 1917,1919.
How compensation claims are
settled.
Waivers forbidden___ Accidental personal injuries aris
ing out o f and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, willful m isconduct, or in
toxication as the solo cause. Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
implication.
Permitted in lieu of
compensation if ac
cident caused by
deliberate intention
of employer or fail
ure to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Elective, as to all em ploym ents,ex
cept farm labor, domestic serv
ice, steam railroads, casual em
ployees not in usual course of
employer’s business.
Minnesota. Ch. 467. Ap
proved Apr. 24, 1913. In
effect Oct. 1,1913. Amend
ed, 1915,1917,1919.
Medical and surgical aid.
Death.
(а) Dependents.
(б) No dependents.
Time for notice and
Administrative system.
claim.
Death:
M aximum, $15;
minimum , $6. Tempo
r a r y t o t a l disability:
Maximum $15; m ini
mum $6, oractual wages
if less than $6. Perma
nent tot a 1disability and
specified ini dries: Maxi
m um , $15; minimum , $6.
Temporary partial dis
ability: M aximum, $12.
Death, 30 to 50 per M aximum, $12.50. Mini
cent. D isability, 50
m um , $6, or actual
per cent.
wages if less than $6.
GGJ p e r c e n t ...
(a) (6) 60 per cent of wages during
disability, for not over 500
weeks; weekly m axim um , $14;
minimum , $7; total not over
$6,000.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for life;
monthly m axim um , $60; m ini
mum, $30. (b) 60 per cent of
w a g e s during disability if no
dependents in U nited States;
m axim um , 100 months; totalnot
over $7,200; monthly m axim um ,
$72; m inimum , $30; $10 addi
tional per m onth if dependents
in U nited States.
mum , $15, minim um , $6.50, or
actual wages if less than $6.50.
(a) N o p r o vision. (b)
Board of labor and sta
tistics;* m ine inspector.2
State.
45.9
Maryland.
87.8
Massachusetts.
83.1
Michigan.
(a) N o p r o v i s i o n , (b)
Department of labor
and industries;* county
inspectors of mines.*
79.0
Minnesota.
A ll employers m ust report all acci
dents involving compensation or
m edical aid w ithin 10 days to
commission; supplementary re
ports as required by commis
sion.
(a) N o p r o v i s i o n . (6)
Bureau of mines;* de
partment of factory in
spection.*
66.1
Missouri.
D isputed cases determined by
board subject to rehearing on
certain specified grounds; lim
ited appeal to courts.
A ll employers and insiders must
report all accidents to industrial
accident board; employers not
in State fund m ust report
monthly on compensation and
medical aid paid.
(a) Industrial a c c i d e n t
board. (6) Department
of labor and industries
(m ines a n d b o i l e r s
only).*
Commissioner of labor
who is also com
pensation commis
sioner.
Voluntary agreement filed w ith
commissioner; disputed cases
settled by commissioner; ap
peal to court.
Reports of accidents shall be made
as directed by compensation
commissioner.
(a) N o provision. (6) B u
reau of labor.
70.4
Nebraska.
Industrial c o m m is
sion.
B y commission under rules adopt
ed by it.
All electing employers and physi
cians m ust report a ll accidents
to industrial commission.
(a) N o provision. (6) La
bor commissioner;* in
spectors of mines.*
76.2
Nevada.
Montana.
How election is made.
Employments covered.
Insurance.
State.
B y employer.
B y employee.
Suits for damages.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
If both employer and
employee come un
der act.
Private.
Public.
Elective, as to “ dangerous’' em
ployments enumerated, except
factories or shops having less
than 5 employees engaged in
manual or mechanical labor;
applies only to “ workmen.”
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept casual employees.
N o provision..............
E le c tin g em p loyers
must give proof of
financial ability or
file a bond.
Writing filed w ith
c o m m is s io n e r o f
labor.
B y accepting compen
sation or beginning
proceedings under
act.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, except
elective officials or
those receiving a sal
ary over $1,200.
A ll employers must in
sure in private com
panies, or provide
self-insurance. E m
ployers of farm labor
and domestic serv
ice exempted.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employees.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer.
Elective, as to “ extrahazardous”
employments conducted for
gain except those having less
than 4 employees, and casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business; numerical
exception does not apply to
structural work 10 feet aDOve
ground. Voluntary, as to nonhazardous employments.
Compulsory, as to enumerated
“ hazardous” employments, and
all other employments having 4
or more workmen or operatives,
conducted for gain;farm labor
and domestic servicespecifically
excluded. Voluntary, as to other
employments.
No provision................. E le ctin g em ployers
must insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employees.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer.
Compulsory, as to all
employees.
Employers must in
sure in State fund
or private compa
nies, or provide selfinsurance.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
North Dakota. Ch. 162.
Approved Mar. 15, 1919.
In effect Mar. 5,1919.
Compulsory, as to all employ
m ents except farm labor, do
mestic service.casual employees
not in usual course of em
ployer’s business, and any com
mon carrier by steam railroad.
Voluntary, as to excepted em
ploym ents.
Compulsory, as to all
employees.
Employers m u st in
sure in State fund.
Ohio. P . 524. Approved June
15, 1911. In effect Jan. 1,
1912. Amended, 1913,1914,
1915,1917,1919.
Compulsory, a s to all employ
ments except those having less
than 5 employees, and casual
employees not in usual course
of employer’s business. Volun
tary, as to employments having
less than 5 employees.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, except
officials or firemen
and policemen in
cities having pen
sion funds.
Oklahoma. Ch. 246. Ap
proved Mar. 22, 1915. In
e ffe c t S e p t . 1, 1915.
Amended, 1919.
Compulsory, as to “ hazardous”
employments (enumerated list
ana general clause) conducted
for gain except those having less
than 3 employees, farm labor,
and employees not engaged in
manual or mechanical work.
Oregon. Ch. 112. Approved
Feb. 25, 1913. In effect
July 1, 1913. Compensa
tion and insurance provi
sions effective J uly 1,1914.
Amended, 1915,1917,1919.
Elective, as to enumerated “ haz
ardous” employments except
farm labor. Voluntary, as to
excepted employment.
New Hampshire. Ch. 163.
Approved Apr. 15, 1911.
In effect Jan. 1,1912.
New Jersey. Ch. 95. Ap
proved Apr. 4,1911. In ef
fect July 4,1911. Amended,
1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1918,
1919.
New Mexico. Ch. 83. Ap
proved Mar. 13, 1917. In
e ffe c t Ju n e 8, 1917.
Amended, 1919.
New York. Ch. 816. Ap
proved D ec. 16, 1913. In
e f f e c t J u ly 1, 1914.
Amended, 1914,1915, 1916,
1917,1918,1919.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Fellowservice; burden Permitted in lieu of Defenses remain..
of proof of contrib
compensation after
utory negligence on
injury.
e m p lo y e r ; n o a s
sum ption of risk due
to negligence. .
Assumed risk, fellow N ot permitted.............. Abrogation of defenses
service ,and contrib
absolute.
utory negligence un
less willful (deliber
ate act or failure to
act, reckless indiffer
ence to safety, or in
toxication). Abro
gation is absolute
and does not depend
upon rejection of act.
Assumed risk, fellow N ot perm itted............
Defenses remain i f em
service, and contrib
ployer has complied
utory negligence.
with insurance pro
visions.
(To face page 130.) No. 4.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
Waiting period.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(&) Temporary.
Partial disability.
50 per cen t.
Maximum, $10.
Mini
mum, no provision.
Death, 150 tim es weekly
earnings. D is a b ilit y ,
300 weeks.
(a) 150 tim es weekly earnings;
to ta l n o t over $3,000. (6) E x
penses o f burial and medical
attendance, maximum, $100.
(a) (6) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, for not over 300
weeks; weekly m axim um , $10.
50 per cen t of wage loss during
disability, for not over 300
weeks; w eekly maximum, $10.
Only in fatal cases involving no
dependents,m edicalattendance
and burial expenses; maximum,
$100.
N otice as soon as prac
ticable and before
l e a v in g s e r v ic e ;
claim in 6 months.
Courts.
Voluntary agreement, or by action
in equity before superior court.
(a) Expenses of last sickness,
maxim um, $200; also burial ex
penses, maximum, $100; 35 to
60 per cen t of wages for 300
weeks; weekly maximum, $12;
minimum $6 or actual wages if
less than $6. (6) B urial e x
penses, maximum^ $100; $400
additional to be paid in to State
treasury for defraying adminis
trative expenses of bureau.
(a) Burial expenses, maxim um,
$75; 40 to 60 per cent of wages to
dependent widow or widower
for 300 weeks; weekly basic wage,
maximum, $30. (&) Expenses of
burial, maxim um, $75, and
medical attendance, maximum,
$50.
(a) 66? per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum, $12;
minimum, $G, or actual wages if
less than $6. (6) 66} percent of
wages during disability, for not
over 300 weeks; weekly maxi
m um, $12; minimum, $6, or ac
tual wages if less than $6.
66? per cent of wages for periods
proportioned to disability; max
im um , 300 weeks. Specified in
juries, 66?, per cent of wages for
fixed periods; weekly maxi
mum, $12; minimum, $6, or ac
tual wages if less than $6.
In nonfatal cases only, reasonable
medical and hospital service for
4 weeks, unless employee refuses
such treatment; maximum, $50;
in cases requiring unusual treat
m ent bureau may extend period
to 17 weeks, but not over $200;
special operating fee of $150 in
case of hemia.
Notice in 14 days; if in
30 days, not barred
except as to extent
employer was preju
diced; bar absolute
after 90 days; claim
in 1 year.
Department of labor..
(a) (&) 50 per cent of wages for not
over 520 weeks; weekly maxiim um , $12; minimum, $6, or
actual wages if less than $6.
If permanent, compensation meas
ured by extent of disability.
Specified injuries, 50 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maximum, $12; minimum , $6
or actual wages if less than $6.
Disfigurement of hand or face,
m aximum, $500.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 2 weeks;
maximum, $50, unless there is a
hospital fund; special operating
fee of $50 in case of hernia.
N otice in 14 days; if
prevented, as soon
as possible, not later
than 60 days. Claim
in 60 days after em
ployer’s refusal to
pay compensation;
1 year in case of
death.
Courts.
(a) 66? per cent of wages for life;
w eekly maxim um, $15; mini
m um , $5. (&) 66? per cent of
wages during disability; weekly
m axim um, $15; minimum, $5;
total not over $3,500.
66? per cent of wage loss during
disability; total not over $3,500
if temporary. Specified injuries.
66? per cent of wages for fixed
periods; weekly maximum, $15
($20 for certain injuries); mini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5. Facial or head disfig
urement, maximum, $3,500.
Such medical, surgical, and hos
pital service as nature of injury
requires Jor 60 days; longer if
necessary. Charges lim ited to
those prevailing in the com
m unity.
N otice of injury in 30
days, death in 30
days unless excused
for cause; claim in
1 year.
(a) (&) 66? per cen t of weekly
wages during disability; weekly
maxim um, $20, minimum , $6,
or actual wages if less than $6.
I f temporary, 66? per cen t of wage
loss during disability; weekly
maximum, $20. If permanent,
for fixed periods according to
schedule of percentage of disa
bility. Disfigurement compen
sated.
Such medical, surgical, and hos Claim in 6 months; 1
year if reasonable
pital service as the nature of the
cause shown.
injury requires.
(a) 66? per cent of wages for life;
w eekly maximum, $12; mini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5. (&) 66? per cent of
wages during disability, for not
over 6 years; weekly maxim um,
$15; minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5; total not
over $3,750.
66? per cent of wage loss during
disability; weekly maximum
$12; total not over $3,750. Speci
fied injuries, 66? per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
m axim um, $12.
Such medical and hospital service
as commission deems proper;
maximum, $200, except in un
usual cases.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 500
weeks; weekly m axim um , $18;
minimum $8, or actual wages if
less than $8. (b) 50 per cent of
wages during disability, for not
over 300 weeks; weekly m axi
mum, $18; minimum, $8, or ac
tual wages if less than $8.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, for not over 300 weeks.
Specified injuries, 50 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maxim um, $18; minimum, $8, or
actual wages if less than $8.
Disfigurement of hand and face,
maximum, $3,000.
(o) (&) $30 a month if single, $35 if
dependent spouse, $8 for each
child under 16; m onthly m axi
mum $50. I f temporary, above
schedule increased by 50 per cent
for first 6 months, but not over
60 per cent of wages. Compen
sation in all cases to continue
during disability.
If temporary, benefits proportion
ate to those for total disability
for not over 2 years. Specified
permanent injuries, $25 a month
for fixed periods; others in pro
portion, but not over 96 months.
Personalinjuries by accident aris 10 days..
ing out of a n d in course of em
ploym ent, unless intentionally
seli-inflicted, or due to intoxica
tion.
D eath, 35 to 60 per
cent. Disability, 662
per cen t.
Maximum, $12.
Mini
mum , $6, or actual
wages if less than $6.
Death, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
400 w eeks. Temporary
to ta l and partial disa
bility, 300 weeks.
No provision except
that employer may
maintain hospital
fu,nd.
Injuries by accident arising out of
and in course of employm ent,
unless due to intoxication or in
tentionally inflicted by him self
or another.
Death, 15 to 60 per
cent. Disability, 50
p ercen t.
Death: W eekly basic wage,
m axim um, $30. Disa
bility: Maximum, $12;
minimum, $6. or actual
wages if less than $6.
Death, 300 weeks; total
disability, 520 weeks;
partial disability, no
provision.
Waivers forbidden___ Accidental personal injuries aris 2 weeks. None if dis
ing out of and in course of em
ability continues for
ployment, unless duo to w illful
more than 7 weeks.
intention to injure self or an
other, or intoxication.
D eath, 15 to 665 Per
cent. Disability, 66?
per cent.
Death: Maximum basic
wage, $100 a month.
Disability: Weekly max
im um $15 ($20 for certaininjuries);minimum,
Death, during life or until
remarriage of widow or
d e p e n d e n t w id o w er.
Permanent total disa
bility, life. Others, dur
ing disability.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk
or illegally employs
minors.
Defenses
abrogated.
Waivers forbidden___ Injuries arising in courso of em
ploym ent unless caused b y em
ployee’s w illful intention to injure self or another. (Occupa
tional diseases included by deci
sion of bureau.)
1 week. None if dis
ability continues for
more than 1 week.
Death, 20 to 66? per
cent. D isability, t>6|
per cent.
Death: Basic w eekly wage,
maxim um , $30, m ini
mum , $18, but compen
sation not more than
w a g es. D is a b ility :
W eekly m axim um , $20.
minimum , $6, or actual
wages if less th an $6.
D eath, duringlife or un til
remarriage. D isability,
during its continuance.
Employers m ust in
sure in State fund
or provide self-in
surance.
Permitted if injury is
due to willful act of
employer, violation
ofsafety law s, or de
fault on insurance
p r e m iu m s . D e
fenses abrogated.
Waivers forbidden ex
cept in case of blind
employees.
1 w eek.
66| p ercen t.
Death, 416 weeks. Perma
nent total disability,
life. Temporary total
disability. 312 weeks.
Partial disability, dur
ing its continuance.
Compulsory, as to all
workmen in hazard
ous e m p lo y m e n ts
employed for wages,
except when equiva
len t schemes are in
force.
Employers must in
sure in private com
panies or provide
self-insurance.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Approved schemes Accidental personal injuries aris
permitted. Waivers
ing out o f and in course of em
forbidden. •
ploym ent, unless due to willful
1 week. None if dis
ability continues for
3 weeks or more.
50 per cen t.
Death: Maximum, $15.
Temporary total disa
bility: Maximum, $15;
minimum. $5, or actual
wages i f less than $5.
Permanent to ta l disa
bility: Maximum, $12;
minimum, $5, or actual
wages i f less than $5.
Partial disability: Maxi
mum, $12.
M a x im u m , $18. M in i
m um, $S, or actual
wages if less than $8.
Elective, as to all em
ployees.
E le ctin g em ployers
must insure in State
fund.
Waivers forbidden.
None..
M o n th ly p e n s io n ;
amounts not based
on wages.
Injuries sustained in course of em
ployment, unless purposely selfinflicted. (O ccupational dis
eases excluded by court.)
intention to injure self or an
other, intoxication, or w illful
failure to use statutory safe
guards. Fatal accidents not in
cluded.
Presumed in hazard
ous employments in
absence of notice
posted in establish
ment and filed w ith
commission.
Presumed in absence
of written notice, if
employer elects.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
u to r y n e g lig e n c e
except willful and
with purpose of selfinjury.
Permitted if injury is
due to willful act of
employer or default
on insurance pre
miums. D e fe n s e s
Defenses remain; prior
law abrogated as
sumed risk and fel1ow service;contrib
utory negligence to
be measured.
Personal injuries by accident
caused b y violent or external
means arising out of and in
course of employment, unless
due to deliberate intention to inj tire self. Occupational diseases
excluded by implication.
How compensation claims are
settled.
Death.
(а) Dependents.
(б) N o dependents.
No substitute agree
m ents valid.
2 weeks.
Time for notice and Administrative system.
claim.
Maximum period.
Injuries arising out of and in
course of employment, unless
due to willful misconduct, in
toxication, or violation of law .
2 w eeks.
Per
Medical and surgical aid.
Maximum and minimum
weekly
compensation
paym ents.
Per cent of wages.
No provision.
i Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether ot not the employers in elective States have accepted the act.
17230S—20.
Compensation benefits.
M onthly pension. Death
$15 to $50. Permanent
total disability, $30 to
$50. Temporary total
disability, $30 to $50, in
creased by 50 per cen t
for first 6 months, but
not over 60 per cent of
wages. Permanent par
tial disability, $25.
Permanent total disabil
ity , 500 weeks. Tempo
rary total and partial
disability, 300 weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um,
$100; widow or dependent w id
ower, 30 per cent of wages until
death or remarriage; 10 per cent
additional for each child under
18; total not over 66§ per cent;
maximum basic wage, $100 a
month. (&) Burial expenses,
maximum. $100; and $100 to cre
ate special fund for paying for
loss of second major members.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$100; 3 5 per cent of weekly wages
to widow or dependent widower
u n til death or remarriage; 10
per cent additional for each
child under 18, bu t not over 66?
per c en t; basic wage, maxim um,
$30, minimum, $18, but compen
sation not more than wages.
(b) Burial expenses, maximum,
$100.
(a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$150; 60* per cent of wages for 8
years; weekly maximum, $15;
total not over $5,000 or less than
$2,000.
(&) Burial expenses,
maximum, $150.
Fatal accidents not covered.
Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, m axim um,
remarriage of widow or
$100; widow or invalid widower,
i nvalid widower. Tota 1
$30 a month un til death or re
disability, during its
marriage; $8 for each child under
co n tin u a n c e . Tempo
16; m onthly maximum $50. (&)
rary partial disability,
Buria 1 expenses, m axim um ,
IP4 weeks.
$100.
Accident reports required.
Accident-prevention work cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (&) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
State.
to act.1
(&)
56.0
N ew Hampshire.
Voluntary agreement approved All employers must report all ac
cidents of more than 2 w eeks’
by department; disputed cases
settled by department or referee;
disability to department of labor
w ithin 4 weeks; fatal accidents
appeal to courts o f common
pleas; appeal to supreme court
w ithin 2 weeks.
upon questions of law.
(a) Department of labor.
(&) No provision.
99. f
New Jersey.
B y interested parties; disputed
cases settled by district court.
Appeal to supreme court.
No provision.
(a) No provision. (6) Mine
inspector.2
30.7
New Mexico.
Industrial commission. Voluntary agreement, 14 days
after injury, approved by com
mission; commission m ay settle
cases direct after hearing; appeal
to court upon questions of law.
All employers must report all acci
dents to industrial commission
w ithin 10 days; commission may
require any information.
(a) Industrial commission.
(b) No provision.
80.1
New York.
Workmen’s compen
sation bureau.
Bureau has full power to deter
mine all questions within its
jurisdiction; appeal to courts.
A ll employers m ust report all
accidents to bureau within 1
week.
(a) Workmen’s compen
sation bureau. (6) No
provision.
46.8
North Dakota.
Claim in 2 years.,
Industrial commission. Commission determines all ques
tions w ithin its jurisdiction; ap
peal to court.
A ll employers m ust report all acci
dents to industrial commission
within 1 week.
(a) Industrial commission.
(b) No provision.
76.3
Ohio.
Necessary medical, surgical, and
hospital service for 60 days;
maximum, $100; period and
amount may bo increased at
discretion of commission; charges
lim ited to those prevailing in
the community.
Notice in 30 days;
claim in 1 year.
All employers must report all acci
dents to industrial commission
w ithin 10 days or reasonable
time; commission may require
any information.
(a) No provision. (6) De
partment of labor;2 in
spectors of mines, oil,
and gas.2
35.9
Oklahoma.
First aid, medical, surgical, and
hospital service and transporta
tion; maximum, $250; commis
sion may allow additional serv
ice.
Claim for disability in
3 months; death, 1
year.
Industrial commission. Voluntary agreement, after 7
•days, approved by commission;
disputed cases may be submitted
to arbitration committee of 3
persons, appointed by commis
sion, composed of representa
tives of each party ana a com
missioner or deputy; or commis
sion m ay settle cases direct after
hearing; appeal to courts.
In d u stria l accid en t Commission settles all questions;
commission.
appeal to courts.
All employers m ust report all acci
dents to industrial accident
commission at once.
(a) In d u str ia l a c cid e n t
commission m ust inves
tigate violation of safety
law s and report same to
prosecuting a t t o r n e y .
lb) Bureau of labor stastistics.2
48.7
Oregon.
2Not provided for in compensation law.
A ll employers subject to act must
make such reports to commis
sioner of labor as required by
him.
(a) No commission.
Bureau of labor.2
Insurance.
State.
Suits for damages.
How election is made.
Employments covered.
B y employer.
B y employee.
Presumed in absence
of notice posted in
establishm ent,given
employee, and filed
w itn compensation
bureau.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employer and filed
w ith compensation
bureau.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
If both employer and
employee come un
der act.
Compensation benefits.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Public.
Pennsylvania. N o. 338. Ap
proved June 2,1915. In ef
fect Jan. 1,1916. Amended,
1917,1919.
Elective, as to all employments
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees not
in usual course of employer’s
business, and outworkers.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, includ
ing public contrac
tors.
E lecting em p lo y ers
must insure m State
fund or private com
panies or provide
self-insurance.
Porto Rico. N o. 19. A p
proved Apr. 13,1916. I n e f
fect July 1,1918. Amended,
1917. New act, No. 10,1918;
amended, 1919.
Compulsory, as to all employments
except those having regularly
less than 3 employees, farm
labor not working w ith m e
chanical or anim al power m a
chinery or hazardous tools, do
m estic service. # nonhazardous
clerical occupations, and em
ployees receiving more than
$1,500 a year.
Elective, as to all employments
except those having less than 6
employees, farm labor, domes
tic service, casual employees
not in usual course of employ
er’s business, and employees
receiving over $1,800 a year.
Voluntary, as to excepted em
ployments.
Elective, as to all employments
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual laborers not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness. Voluntary, as to excepted
employments.
Compulsory, as to em
ployees engaged on
public works per
formed b y the ad
ministration.
E m p lo y e r s m ust in
sure in State fund.
C om pu lsory, as to
employees of State;
elective, as to em
ployees of cities and
towns, except fire
and police depart
m ents.
Electing e m p lo y e r s
must insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Writing filed w ith
commissioner of in
dustrial statistics.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice, if
employer elects.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
service, and con
fails to insure risk.
tributory negligence.
Defenses remain.,
Approved s c h e m e s
may be submitted
if benefits equal
those of act; w aiv
ers forbidden.
Compulsory, as to all
employees.
Electing e m p lo y e r s
m ust insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employees and filed
w ith commissioner.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employer and filed
w itn commissioner.
Assum ed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
service, and con
tributory negligence.
Defenses remain.
Approved substitute
schemes permitted;
waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to w illful
misconduct, intoxication, fail
ure to use safeguards, violation
of law, or intentionally self-in
flicted. Occupational diseases
specifically excluded.
Presumed in' absence
of w ritten or printed
notice posted in es
t a b lis h m e n t a n d
filed w ith bureau of
workshop and fac
tory inspection.
Presumed in absence
of written or printed
notice to employer
and bureau of work
shop and factory
inspection.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
service, ana con
fails to insure risk.
tributory negligence.
Defenses abrogated.
Defenses rem ain..,
Waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to willful
misconduct, intentional self-in
flicted injury, intoxication, or
w illful failure to use safety ap
pliances, or perform statutory
duties. Occupational dismses
specifically excluded.
Presumed in absence
of w ritten notice to
employer.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted against em
ployer accepting in
service, and con
surance system if
tributory negligence,
unless willful or due
his w illful or gross
to intoxication.
negligence c a u s e s
death; damages, in
addition to compen
sation, if employer
charges part of in
surance premium
against employee.
Defenses rem ain..
Waivers forbidden. . . . Personal injuries sustained in
course of employment unless
due to willful intent to injure self
or another, intoxication, act of
God, or causod by act of third
party for personal reasons. Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
court.
Rhode Island. Ch. 831. A p
proved Apr. 29, 1912. In
effect Oct. 1,1912. Amend
ed, 1913,1915,1917,1919.
South Dakota. Ch. 376. Ap
proved Mar. 10, 1917. In
effect June 1,1917. Amend
ed, 1919.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
service, and con
fails to insure risk.
tributory negligence
u nless due to in
toxication or reck
less in d iffe r e n c e .
Abrogation of de
fenses is absolute
and does not depend
uponrejection of act.
Abrogation of defenses Waivers forbidden.
absolute.
Permitted if injury is
caused b y illegal act
or gross negligence
of employer.
Tennessee.
Ch. 123. Ap
proved Apr. 15, 1919. In
effect July 1,1919.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept those employing less than
10 employees, farm labor, do
m estic service, coal mines, and
casual employees (defined as not
in usual course of employer’s
business). Voluntary, as to coal
mines «%nd employments having
less than 10 employees.
State and subdivisions Electing e m p lo y e r s
exempted, but may
m ust insure in pri
accept voluntarily.
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Texas. Ch. 179. Approved
Apr. 1£, 1913. In effect
Sej3t. 1, 1913. Amended,
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept tnose having less than 3 em
ployees, farm labor, domestic
service, railways used as com
mon carriers, and employees not
in usual course of employer’s
business.
No provision.
Electing e m p lo y e r s B y s u b scr ib in g to
must insure in Texas
State association or
insuring in other
Employers’ Insur
ance Association or
company and noti
fying employees.
other private com
panies.
U tah. Ch. 100. Approved
Mar. 15, 1917. In effect
July 1, 1917.
Amended,
1919.
Compulsory, as to all employments
except those having less than 3
employees, farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness . Voluntary, as to excepted
employments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, excep t
elective officials or
those receiving a
salary over $2,400.
Employers m ust in
sure in State fund or
private com panies
or provide self-in
surance.
No provision.,
Permitted: (1) If em
ployer fails to insure
risk when injury is
caused by employ
er’s negligence; de
fenses abrogated; (2)
in case of death; de
fenses remain and
employer’s
negli
gence
m ust
be
proved: and (3) if
injury is due to em
ployer’s willful m is
conduct.
1Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective States have accepted the act.
172308—20. (To face page 130.) No. 5.
Waiting period.
Per cent of wages.
Private.
Approved substitute
schemes permitted
if benefits equal
those of act; waivers
forbidden.
Personal injuries by accident in
course of employm ent while ac
tually engaged in furtherance of
employer’s business, unless in
tentionally self-inflicted, or due
to intentional act of third party
for reasons not connected w ith
the employm ent.
Maximum and minimum
weekly compensation
paym ents.
Maximum period.
Death.
(a} Dependents.
(6) No dependents.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(b) Temporary.
Medical and surgical aid.
Time for notice and Administrative system.
claim.
H ow compensation claims are
settled.
Death, 15 to 60 per
cen t. D isability, 60
per cent.
Death: Basic wage, m axi
mum, $20: minimum,
$10. Disability: Maxi
mum,$12; minimum, $6,
or actual wages if less
than $6.
Death, 300 w eeks. Total
disability. 500 weeks.
Partial disability, 300
weeks.
(a) Expenses of burial and last (a) (6) 60 per cent of wages during
sickness, maxim um, $100; 15 to
disability, maxim um, 500 weeks;
60 per cent of wages for 300 weeks;
w eekly maxim um $12; minimum
basic wage, maximum, $20; m in i
$6, or actual wages if less than $6;
mum, $10. (b) Expenses of bur
total not over $5,000.
ial and last sickness, maxim um,
$100.
60 per cent of wage loss during dis Reasonable medical, surgical, and
ability, for not over 300 weeks;
hospital service for SO days, un
less employee refuses; m axi
weekly maxim um, $12. Specified
mum, $100, except in hospital
injuries, 60 per cent of wa^es for
fixed periods; weekly maxim um,
cases; if employee refuses m edi
$12; m inimum , $6, or actual
cal service, employer not liable
for aggravation of injury.
wages if less than $6.
Charges lim ited to those pre
vailing in the com m unity.
Notice in 14 days;
claim in 1 year.
Workmen’s compensa Voluntary agreement, after 10
days, approved b y board; dis
tion board and de
puted cases settled b y board’s
partment of labor
referee after hearing, appeal to
and industry.
board; cases involving agreed
facts settled b y board direct;
appeal to court upon questions
of law .
Temporary total dis
ability, 50 per cent.
Temporary total disabil
ity: Maximum, $7; m ini
mum, $3.
Temporary total disabil
ity , 104 weeks.
(a) Compensation proportioned to
earning capacity, number and
needs of dependents of deceased;
maxim um, $3,000 to $4,000. (b)
N o provision.
(a) Compensation proportioned to
age and rate of wages; m axim um ,
$4,000; m inim um , $2,000. (6) 50
per cent of wages during disa
b ility , for not over 104 weeks;
weekly maximum, $7; minimum,
$3.
If permanent, compensation pro
portioned to degree of disability
and rate of wages; maximum,
$2,500.
Necessary medical attendance
and sustenance as prescribed by
commission.
Claim must be made
in 90 days.
Workmen’s relief com Investigation b y commission and
department of agriculture and
mission.
labor; claims settled by com
mission; appeal to court only
upon question of whether in
jured employee is entitled to
compensation.
50 per c e n t .. .. ——- .
Total disability: M axi D eath, 300 weeks. T otal
m um, $14; m inimum ,
disability, 500 weeks.
$7. Others: Maximum,
Partial disability, 300
$10; minim um , $4.
weeks.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 300
weeks; w eekly m axim um , $10;
minim um , $4. (b) Expenses of
burial and last sickness, m axi
mum, $200.
(a) (6) 50 per cent of wages during 50 per cent of wage loss during dis
disability, for not over 500weeks;
ability, for n ot over 300 weeks;
total n ot over $5,000; w eekly
weekly maximum, $10. Specified
maxim um, $14; minim um , $7.
injuries, 50 per cent of wages for
fixed periods in addition to all
other compensation; weekly
maxim um, $10; minim um , $4.
Reasonable medical and hospital
service for 4. weeks; maximum. N otice in 30 days;
claim in 1 year.
$200, including burial, in fatal
cases involving no dependents.
10days. N on eifd isa
bility continues for
6 weeks or more.
Total disability. 55 per
cent. Partial dis
ability, 50 per cent.
Death: N o w eekly m axi D eath, 378 weeks. Total (a) 4 tim es annual earnings; m axi
disability, during its con
mum. Permanent total
mum, $3,000; minim um , $1,650.
disability: Maximum,
tinuance. Partial disa
(6) Burial expenses; maxim um,
$12; m inimum , $6.50.
b ility , 312 weeks.
$150.
Others: Maximum, $12
m inimum , $6.50, or ac
tual wages i f less than
$6.50.
Necessary medical, surgical, and
hospital service fo r 12 weeks:
m axim um, $150.
2 weeks. None if dis
ability continues for
6 weeks or more.
Death, 20 to 50 per
cent. D isability, 50
per cent.
Maximum, $11; minimum , Death,400weeks. Perma (a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$5, or actual wages if less
nent total disability, 550
$100; 20 to 50 per cent of wages
than $5.
for not over 400 weeks; weekly
weeks.
Others, 300
maxim um, $11, minimum , $5, or
weeks.
actual wages if less than $5. (&)
Burial expenses, m axim um,
$ 100.
1 w eek.
60 p ercen t.
Maximum, $15.
mum, $5.
(a) 55 per cent of wages during 50 per cent of wage loss for not
over 6 years; weekly m axim um,
disability; w eekly maxim um,
$12. Specified injuries, 55 per
$12; m inim um , $6.50; total not
cent of wages for fixed pericxis;
more than death benefits. (b)
weekly maxim um, $12; m ini
55 per cent of wages during disa
mum. $6.50, or actual wages if
b ility for n ot over 6 years;
less than $6.50. Disfigurement
weekly m axim um , $12; m in i
of head, face, or hand, maximum,
m um , $6.50, or actual wages if
one-fourth death benefits.
less than $6.50.
(a) 50 per cen t of wages for 400 50 per cent of wage loss during
disability for not over 300 weeks;
weeks; w eekly m axim um , $11;
weekly maxim um, $11. Speci
minimum . $5, or actual wages if
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
less than $5; not over $5 there
after for 150 weeks in certain
for fixed periods; others propor
cases; total not over $5,000. (&)
tionate, out for not over 400
50 per cen t of wages during
weeks; weekly maxim um, $11;
disability; maxim um, 300 weeks;
minimum, $5, or actual wages
w eekly m axim um , $11; m ini
if less than $5.
mum $5, or actual wages if less
than $5.
(a) (b) 60 per cent of wages during 60 per cent of wage loss during dis
disability, for not over 401
ability, for not over 300 weeks
weeks; weekly m axim um , $15;
(401 weeks if partial follows total
minim um , $5,
disability); w eekly maxim um,
$15. Specified injuries, 60 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
proportionate for others, includ
ing disfigurement, if it impairs
occupational
opportunities;
weekly m axim um, $15; m ini
mum, $5.
60 per cen t.
Death: Maximum. $16.
Disability: Maximum,
$16; m inimum , $7.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for 5 years;
thereafter, 45 per cent for life;
weekly m axim um , $16; m ini
m um , $7. (&) 60 per cent of
wages for not over 6 years;
w eekly m axim um, $16; m ini
m um , $7; total not over $5,000.
10 days..
Personal injuries b y accident aris None.
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless received w hile
intending to commit a crime,
when voluntarily self-inflicted
or while trying to injure another,
when due to intoxication, when
w illful criminal act of another,
or where gross negligence was
solo cause.
Personal injuries b y accident aris 2 weeks. None if dis
ing out of and in course of em
ability continues for
ploym ent unless due to willful
more than 4 weeks.
intent to injure self or another,
or intoxication.
Personal injuries b y accident aris 3 days.
ing out of or in course of em
ploym ent, except those purpose
ly self-inflicted. Occupational
diseases specifically excluded.
Mini-
D eath, 360 weeks. Total
disability, 401 weeks.
Partial disability, 300
weeks.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for 360
weeks; w eekly m axim um, $15;
minim um , $5. (6) Expenses of
last sickness, and funeral benefit
o f$100.
Permanent total disability, (a) Burial expenses, maxim um,
life. Others, 312 weeks.
$150; 60 per cent of wages for 6
years; w eekly m axim um , $16;
total not over $5,000 and not less
than $2,000. (b) Burial ex
penses, m axim um, $150; and
$750 to be paid into State treas
ury if employer is not insured in
fund, from which second injuries
shall be compensated.
Accident reports required.
Partial disability.
60 per cent of wage loss for not
over 6 years; weekly maximum,
$16; total not over $5,000. Spec
ified injuries, 60 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maxim um, $16. Disfigurement:
Maximum, 200 weeks.
Courts.
A ll subscribers to State fund m ust (a) Workmen’s insurance
report all accidents to workmen’s
board empowered to
insurance board w ithin 7 days;
make safety regulations
commissioner of insurance may
affecting subscribers to
require insurers to file annual
State fund. (6) Depart
statement of loss experience.
m ent of labor and indus
A ll employers (except casual
try;2 department of
employments) m ust report all
mines.2
accidents of 2 days’ disability to
department of labor and indus
try w ith in 30 days.2
A ll employers m ust report all ac (a) Noprovision. (6) D e
cidents to workmen’s relief com
partment of agriculture
and labor.8
mission w ithin 5 days.
State.
Pennsylvania.
20.5
Porto Eta
(6)
82.9
Rhode Island.
Voluntary agreement approved A ll assenting employees m ust re
by commissioner; disputed cases
port all accidents to industrial
settled by arbitration committee
commissioner w ithin 48 hours;
supplementary report after 60
of 3 persons composed of repre
days, or upon termination of dis
sentatives of each party and com
missioner; review b y commis
ability.
sioner; appeal to court upon
questions of law.
Voluntary agreements approved No provision.,
by court; disputed cases settled
b y courts.
(a) No provision, (b) In
spector of mines.2
58.0
South Dakota.
(a) No provision. (6)
Chief mine inspector;2
bureau of workshop and
factory inspection.2
37.2
Tennessee.
V oluntary agreement approved by
court; disputed cases settled by
court upon petition of either
party; appeal to supreme court
upon questions of law or equity.
commis-
Per
Accident-prevention work
cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (6) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
to act.i
A ll assenting employers (except
public utilities) m ust report all
injuries of 2 weeks’ disability to
bureau of labor w ith in 3 weeks,
fatal w ithin 48 hours.
(a) No commission.
Factory inspector.*
N otice in 30 days un
less excused for
cause; claim in 1
year.
Industrial
sioner.
Reasonable medical, surgical.and
hospital service fo r SO days,
longer a t option of employer;
maximum, $100; charges limited
to those prevailing in th e com
m unity.
N otice as soon as prac
ticable; barred after
30 days unless cause
shown; claim in 1
year.
Courts.
Reasonable medical and hospital
service for 2 weeks. Two weeks
additional in cases requiring
hospital confinement. Charges
lim ited to those prevailing in the
com m unity.
N otice in 30 days;
claim in 6 months.
Industrial
board.
Voluntary agreement or by board;
appeal to court.
A ll employers m ust report all acci
dents of more than 1 day’s dis
ability to industrial accident
board w ith in 8 days; supple
m entary report after 60 days, or
upon termination of disability.
(a) No provision. (b) B u
reau of labor statistics;2
m ine inspector;2 Texas
Employers’ Insurance
A ssociation.
47.9
Texas.
Such medical and hospital serv
ice as employer or insurer may
deem proper; m axim um , $500;
hospital benefit fund permitted
in lieu of above.
To be fixed by com
mission.
Industrial commission, Commission has full power to de
termine all questions relating to
compensation; lim ited appeal to
court.
A ll employers m ust report all acci
dents to industrial commission
w ithin 1 week.
(a) Industrial commission.
(b) No provision.
74.4
U tah.
* Not provided for in compensation law.
accident
Insurance.
State.
B y employer.
Private.
Public.
V e r m o n t. C h . 164. A p
proved Apr. 1, 1915.
In
effect July 1,1915. Am end
ed, 1917,1919.
Elective, as to all employments
conducted for gain, except those
having less than 11 employees,
domestic service, casual em
ployees, those not in usual
course of employer’s business
and employees receiving over
$2,000 a year. Voluntary, as to
other employm ents.
Elective, as to all em
ployees of cities,
towns, and incorpo
rated villages, ex
cept officials elected
or receiving more
than $2,000 a year.
E lecting employers
m ust insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of written agreement
or notice to em
ployees and board;
municipality’s vote.
Virginia. Ch. 400. Became
law over governor's veto
Mar. 21, 1918. In effect
Jan. 1,1919.
Elective, as to all em ploym ents ex
cept those employing less than 11
employees, farm labor, domestic
service, steam railroads, casual
employees, or those not in usual
course of employer’s business.
Voluntary, as to excepted employ
ments.
Compulsory, as to all
employees.
E le c t in g e m p lo y e r s
must insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed in absence
of written or printed
notice to employees
and commission.
W ashington. Ch. 74. Ap
proved Mar. 14, 1911. In
effect Oct. 1,1911. Amend
ed 1913,1915,1917,1919.
Compulsory, as to “ extnihazardous” em ploym ents, including
enumerated list. Voluntary, as
to employm ents not “ extrahazardous.”
Compulsory, as to all Employers must in
employees in “ extrasure in State fund.
hazardous” work in
which workmen are
employed for wages.
Voluntary, as to em
ploym ents n ot “ extrahazardous.”
W est Virginia. Ch. 10. Ap
proved Feb. 22, 1913. In
effect Oct. 1,1913. Amend
ed 1915,1919.
Elective, as to all “ regular” em
ploym ents except farm labor,
domestic service, traveling sales
men, and officers of corporations.
Voluntary, as to employees not
regularly employed.
Wisconsin.
Ch. 50.
Ap
proved May 3, 1911. In
effect same date. Amend
ed 1913,1915,1917,1919.
Elective, as to all em ploym ents ex Compulsory, as to a ll E le c t in g e m p lo y e r s
m ust insure in pri
employees except of
cept those having less than 3 em
vate companies or
ficials.
ployees,3 farm labor, and em
provide self-insur
ployees not in usual course of
ance.
employer’s business. Voluntary,
as to steam railroads.
W yoming.
Ch. 124. Ap
proved F eb . 27, 1915. In
effect Apr. 1,1915. A m end
ed 1917,1919.
U nited States. 35 Stat. 556.
Approved May 30, 1908.
In effect Aug. 1, 1908.
A m ended 1911-12.
New
a ct, No. 267,approved Sept.
7 , 1916. In effect same
date. Am ended 1919.
Elective, as to all em
ployees except elec
tive officials.
Electing employer
must insure in State
fund or provide selfinsurance.
Compulsory, as to “ extrahazard- Compulsory, as to all Employers m ust in
employees in “ extrasure in State fund.
ous” em ploym ents enumerated
hazardous” work in
conducted for gain, except casua 1
which
workmen
are
employees not in usual course o f
employed for wages,
employer’s business, clerical
e x c e p t em ployees
employees not subject to hazard
who are otherwise
of em ploym ent, and officials.
provided for.
Compulsory, as to all employees of Compulsory, as to a ll
c iv il employees of
Panama Railroad.
th e U nited States
and of the Govern
m ent of the District
of Columbia, except
police and firemen
h a v in g p e n s io n
funds.
17230S—20. (To face page 130.) No. 6.
Suits for damages.
IIow election is mado.
Em ploym ents covered.
i
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not
elect.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
If both employer and
employee come un
der act.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow
service, and con
of written agreement
tributory negligence.
or notice to em
ployer and board.
Not permitted.
Defenses remain.,
W ai vers forbidden. . . . Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ploym ent, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, intoxication, or failure to
use safety devices. Occupa
tional diseases specifically ex
cluded.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence.
Not permitted.
Defenses rem ain.
A pproved sch em es
permitted. Waivers
forbidden.
B y employee.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and com
mission.
B y paying premiums
and posting notice.
Remaining in service
w ith notice of em
ployer’s election.
Assumed risk, fellow
s e r v ic e , c o n tr ib u
tory negligence, and
negligence of per
sons “ whoso duties
are prescribed b y
statute.”
Presumed as to em
ployers of 3 or more
persons in absence
of notice filed w ith
commission.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer, if em
ployer elects.
Assumed risk, also fel
low sorvice, and con
tributory negligence
unless w illful, if 3 or
m o r e e m p lo y e e s ,
(Does not apply to
farm labor.)
Suit for excess dam
ages perm itted, in
addition to compen
sation if injury is
due to em ployer’s
intent to injure; a!so
permitted if em
ployer is in default
on insurance pre
miums.
N ot perm itted..............
W aiting period.
Per cent of wages.
W a iv e r s forbid den;
hospital fund m ay
bo maintained.
Suit for excess dam
ages permitted, in
addition to compen
sation, if injury re
sulted from deliber
ate intention of em
ployer.
1 w oek.
Personal injuries b y accident aris- 2 w eeks.
ingout of and in course of employ
ment, unless due to w illful mis
conduct, intent to Injure self or
another, intoxication, or willful
failure to use safety appliance*
or obey safety rules. Occupa
tional diseases specifically ex
cluded.
Personal injuries sustained on 1 week. None If disa
b ility continues for
premises of plant or in course o f
more than 30 days.
em ploym ent away from plant,
unless deliberately self-inflicted.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally excluded.
1 week.
Assenting employers
relieved of liab ility
for damages to em
ployees who remain
in service after no
tice of em ployer’s
election.
Benefit funds permit
ted provided em
ployees do n ot con
tribute and benefits
equal those o f act.
W aivers forbidden.
Personal injuries sustained in
course of and resulting from em
ploym ent, unless self-inflicted
or due to w illful misconduct,
disobedience to rules, or intoxi
cation.
Defenses rem ain.
Insurance or other
schemes permitted
if benefits equal
those of act. W aiv
ers forbidden.
Personal injuries growing out of 1 week. None i f dis
ability continues for
and Incidental to em ploym ent,
more than 4 weeks.
unless intent ionally self-inflicted.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally included.
N ot perm itted.
W a iv e r s fo r b id d e n .
N o reduction o f lia
b ility allowed.
Injuries sustained as a result of
em ploym ent, unless duo to cul
pable negligence of employee or
willful act of a third party. Oc
cupational diseases specifically
excluded.
Government can not
be sued.
N o provision.
Personal injuries sustained whilo
in performance of du ty unless
due to w illful misconduct, in
tention to injure selfor another,
or intoxication.
Including all employees in employments covered by the compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective Statcsihave accepted the act.
I
Compensation benefits.
10 days In case of total
temporary disabil
it y only; none if dis
ability continues for
more than 30 days;
1 u m p -su m p a y
ments in a ll other
casos.
3 days. Compensa
tion begins on fourth
day after disability
or exhaustion of sick
and annual leave.
Maximum and minimum
weekly
compensation
paym ents.
M aximum period.
Death.
Dependents.
$6) No dependents.
Total disability.
(а) Permanent.
(б) Temporary.
Time for notice and
Administrative system.
claim.
Medical and surgical aid.
Partial disability.
H ow compensation claims are
settled.
Accident reports required.
Per
cent
Accident-prevention work
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (6) Other ployees
agencies.
subject
to act.1
Death, 15 to 45 per
cent. D isability, 50
per cent.
Death: M inimum basic
w ase, $5. T otal d is
ability: M a x i m u m ,
$12.50; m inim um , $3, or
actual wages if less than
$3. Partial disability:
Maximum, $10.
260 w eek s.. .
(a) Burial expenses, maxim um,
$100; 15 to 45 per cent of wages
for 260 weeks; total not over
$3,500; m inim um weekly basic
wage, $5. (b) Burial expenses,
m axim um , $100.
(a) (6) 50 per cent of wagos for
260 weeks; w eekly m axim um .
$12.50; m inim um , $3, or actual
wages if less th an $3; total not
over $4,000.
Reasonable m edical, surgical, and
hospital service fo r 14 days;
m axim um , $100. Charges lim
ited to those prevailing in the
com m unity.
Notice as soon as prac
ticable; claim in 6
months.
Commissioner of in Voluntary agreement approved
dustries.
by commissioner; disputed cases
settled by commissioner after
hearing; appeal to courts.
50 per cent..................
M aximum,
mum, $5.
Death, 300 weeks. Total
disability, 500 weeks.
Partial disability, 200
weeks.
(a) Burial expenses, maxim um,
$100; 50 per cent of wages for 300
weeks; weekly m axim um , $10,
m inim um . $5; total not over
$4,000. (6) Burial expenses,
m axim um , $100.
(a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during 50 per cent of wage loss during disa Necessary medical, surgical, and
disability; maximum, 500 weeks;
b ility for not over 300 weeks;
hospital service for SO days;
weekly maximum, $10, mini
weekly m axim um , $10. Speci
longer at option of employer;
mum, $5; total not over $4,000.
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
employee must accept unless
for fixed periods; weekly m axi
otherwise ordered b y commis
mum, $10, minim um , $5.
sion; charges lim ited to those
prevailing in the com m unity.
Notice in 30 days.
Claim in 1 year.
Industrial commission. Voluntary agreement after 10 days
approved by commission; dis
puted cases settled b y commis
sion or member thereof; review
by full commission; appeal to
courts.
A ll assenting employers m ust re (a) Commissioner of in
port all injuries of 1 day’s dis
dustries. (6) N o provi
ability or requiring medical at
sion.
tendance to commissioner of in
dustries w ithin 72 hours; sup
plementary report after each 60
days or termination of disability;
final report showing total pay
ments made w ithin 60 days after
termination of disability.
A ll employers must report all in (a) No provision. (b) Bu
juries of over 1 week's disability
reau of labor and indus
to commission w ithin 10 days;
trial statistics.2
supplementary report after 60
days or upon termination of dis
ability.
M o n t h ly p e n sio n :
amounts not based
on wages.
Monthly pension: Death, Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$10 to $50. Permanent
remarriage of widow or
$75 if single, $100 if married; $30
total disability, $30 to
invalid widower. Total
a month to widow or invalid
$50. Temporary total
disability, during its
widower until death or remar
disability^ permanent
continuance.
riage; $5 to each child under 16;
amounts increased for
m onthly m axim um , $50; $250
first 6 months.
additional which shall not be
Industrial insurance
d e p a r tm e n t and
medical aid board.
A ll questions relating to compen
sation determined b y depart
ment; appeal to courts.
A ll employers must report all acci
dents to industrial insurance de
partment at once.
$10;
mini
Death, monthly pen
sion. D isability, 50
per cent.
Disability: Maximum, $12; Death, during life or until
minimum, $5.
remarriage of widow or
invalid widower. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary total
disability, 78 weeks.
Permanent partial disa
bility, 340 weeks.
D isability, 65 per cent
Maximum, $14.63; mini
mum, $6.83.
Death,320 weeks. Perma
nent total disability, 15
years. Others, during
disability.
A mounts not based
on wages.
Temporary total disabil
ity: Monthly pension,
$35 to $60. 1 ixed lump
sums in other cases.
N o provision.
Death, 10 to 66? per
cent. D is a b ilit y ,
662 per cent.
Death: Basic wage,
Death, during life or until
remarriage of widow or
widower; other depend
ents, 416 weeks. Disa
bility, during its con
tinuance.
m o n t h ly m a x im u m ,
$ 1 0 0 ; minim um , $50.
T o ta l d is a b ility :
M o n th ly m a x im u m ,
$66.67; m inimum , $33.33,
or actual wa^es if less
than $33.33. Partial dis
ability: M onthly m axi
mum, $66.67.
50 per cent of wage loss during dis
ability; m axim um , 260 weeks;
weekly m axim um , $10. Speci
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; others propor
tionate; w eekly m axim um , $10.
Compensation for disfigurement
if resulting in decreased ability
to secure em ploym ent.
‘
State.
55.2
Vermont.
45.6
Virginia.
(a) No provision; (6) State
safety board;2 State
mining board.2
51.5
Washington.
(a) (6) $30 a month; for each child
under 16, $5 a month; monthly
m axim um, $50. If temporary,
above schedule increased for
first 6 m onths in certain cases.
Compensation in all cases to
continue during disability.
Proportionate amounts based Necessary medical, surgical, and
upon loss of earning capacity;
hospital service and transporta
maximum, $2,000. Fixed sums
tion. Employees must bear onefor certain specified injuries.
half cost.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for life;
weekly m axim um , $12, m ini
mum, $5. (6) 50 per cent of
wages during disability, for not
oyer 52 weeks (78 weeks in spe
cial cases); w eekly m axim um,
$12, minimum , $5.
If permanent, 50 per cent of wages Reasonable medical, surgical, and
for various periods (from 20 to
hospital treatment; m axim um,
340 wreeks); over 85 per cent of
$150; m axim um , $300 in severe
disability, 50 per cent of wages
cases, $600 in permanent disa
for life; weekly maximum, $12;
b ility cases where disability can
minimum, $5.
bo materially reduced.
Claim in 6 months;
proof of dependency
in 9 months.
C om pensation com
missioner.
Commissioner has full power to
determine all questions relating
to compensation; appeal to
courts.
A ll employers must report any in
formation required by compen
sation commissioner for purpose
of act upon request.
(a) Commissioner may require employers to
adopt and post safety
rules. (6) Bureau of la
bor; 2 Department of
mines.2
80.1
W est Virginia.
(a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 65 per cent of wages during dis 65 per cent of wage loss during dis Reasonable medical, surgical, and
$100; 4 years’ earnings, but
ability; maximum, 9 to 15 years,
ability; maximum, 4 years’
hospital treatment for 90 days;
amount added to prior disability
depending on age of employee.
earnings. Weekly maximum,
longer if disability period can be
payments may not exceed 6
Weekly maximum, $14.63; mini
$14.63. Specified injuries, 65
decreased.
Christian Science
years’ earnings; maximum an
mum, $6.83. (6) 65 per cent of
per cent of wages for fixed peri
treatment permitted unless em
nual earnings, $1,125; m in iwages during disability; max
ods, subject to extension; others
ployer refuses b y filing written
mum, $525. (6) Burial expenses,
imum, 4 years’ earnings. W e e k
proportionate, based on 80
notice.
maximum, $100.
ly maximum, $14.63; minimum,
per cent of schedule. Weekly
$6.83.
maximum, $14.63; minimum,
$6.83.
Disfigurement, result
ing in loss of wages, maximum,
$750. An additional $150 for
loss of a major member shall be
paid into State treasury to be
used for compensating second
injuries.
(a) Burial expenses, maxim um, (a) Lump sum of $2,500 plus $100 Fixed lump sums for specified in In nonfatal cases, medical and hos
$50; lum p sum of $2,000 to widow
a year for each child under 16;
juries; others in proportion;
pital service: m axim um, $100,
or invalid widower; also $100 a
total not over $5,500. (b) $35 a
maximum, $1,500.
unless there is a hospital fund.
year for each child under 16;
month if single, $40 if married;
total not over $3,000. (6) Burial
$6 a month for each child under
expenses, m axim um , $50.
16; monthly maximum, $60;
total not over $5,500.
Notice in 30 days;
claimin 2 years.
I n d u s tr ia l c o m m is
sion.
Voluntary agreement approved
b y commission; disputed cases
settled by commission after
hearing; appeal to courts.
A ll employers of 4 or more persons
and insurers must report all ac
cidents to industrial commis
sion w ithin first 5 days of each
month.
(a) I n d u s tr ia l eo m m is• sion. (b) No provision.
75.4
Wisconsin.
W yoming.
used for burial expenses.
(b)
Burial expenses, m axim um , $75
if single. $100 if married.
(a) Burial expenses, maxim um,
$150; widow or invalid widower,
$20 a month un til death or re
marriage; $5 additional for each
child under $15. (b) Burial ex
penses, m axim um , $150.
( ^ B u r ia l expenses, m axim um ,
$ 1 0 0 and transportation; im m e
diate fam ily, 25 to 66$ per cent
until death, remarriage, or 1 8
years of age; other dependents.
10 to 40 per cent; m axim um ,
8 years; basic wage, m axim um ,
$100 a month; m inimum , $50 a
month, (b) Burial expenses,
m axim um , $100 and transporta
tion.
(a) (b) 66 jl per cent of wages during
disability; monthly m axim um,
$66.67; minim um , $33.33, or
actual wages if less than $33.33.
2 Not provided for in compensation law.
i
1
N o provision.................
66? per cent of wage loss during Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 48 hours, 1
disability; monthly maximum,
year for reasonable
hospital service, and transpor
$66.67.
tation if necessary, for a reason
able period unless employee re
fuses.
cause; claim for dis
ability in 60 days, 1
year for reasonable
cause; death, 1 year.
U nited States Em
ployees’ Compensa
tion Commission.
Claims and disputed cases settled
b y district courts of county after
hearing; appeal to supreme
court.
A ll employers engaged in extrahazardous employm ents must
report all accidents to district
court w ithin 20 days.
(a) No commission. (6)
Inspector of mines.2
46.3
Commission decides all questions
arising under act.
Immediate superiors must report
such information as required by
commission immediately; sup
plementary reports as required
b y commission.
(a) No provision. (6) Bu
reau of Mines;2 Bureau
of Standards;2 Inter
state Commerce Com
mission.2
100.0
* But employers having less than 3 employees lose defense of assumed risk if they do not elect.
U nited States.
P A R T II.—C A N A D A .1
INTRODUCTION.
With the single exception of Prince Edward Island, all of the
Provinces of Canada, including the Dominion Government, have
enacted workmen’s compensation legislation. The law of Sas
katchewan, however, although designated in its title as a work
men’s compensation law, is merely an employer’s liability act,
and is therefore not included in the following discussion. The
Dominion act provides that if a Federal employee (Government
railroads excepted) sustains an injury he shall receive the same com
pensation as any other person would, under similar circumstances,
receive under the law of the Province in which the accident occurred.
Administration of the Dominion act is placed in the hands of the
provincial boards, and any compensation awarded may be paid by
the Dominion Minister of Finance.
Chronologically, Canadian legislation practically parallels that of the
United States. The first law was enacted by British Columbia in
1902, followed by Alberta in 1908, Quebec in 1909, and Manitoba and
Nova Scotia in 1910.2 These early laws were patterned after the
British act and were really modified employers7 liability laws. No
administrative commissions were provided, and usually suits for
damages were permitted. A radical departure from the British
type of law, however, took place in 1914, when Ontario enacted the
first of the collective-liability compensation acts prevailing in most
of the Provinces at the present time. These laws were patterned
upon the mutual liability idea of the German workmen’s compen
sation system and upon the exclusive State fund plan of the Wash
ington act. Nova Scotia enacted a similar law in 1915, followed by
British Columbia in 1916 and by Alberta and New Brunswick in
1918.
CANADIAN AND AMERICAN LAWS COMPARED.
An analysis of the Canadian laws shows a number of striking char
acteristics and of deviations from the American type of compensa
tion act. Some of the more important of these are the following:
1.
In Canada there is a remarkable uniformity among the several
compensation laws. This uniformity applies to the scope of the
* T his comparison includes 1919 legislation.
2 In the U nited States th e Federal compensation act was passed in 1908, w hile Montana enacted
a compensation law in 1909 and N ew York in 1910, though these early State law s were later declared
unconstitutional.
131
132
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF CANADA.
acts, benefits, injuries covered, administration, and procedure. In
the United States compensation acts are distinguished more for
their dissimilarity than for their uniformity.
2. In Canada all of the laws are compulsory as to the employers
coming within the scope of the act. In the United States only 14
are compulsory while 31 are elective.
3. In Canada the scope of the law in each Province (Yukon ex
cepted) is limited to enumerated hazardous employments. There is
some diversity in the number of such employments, but the principal
hazardous industries are covered, including manufacturing, mining,
construction, and transportation. In the United States only 13 States
limit their scope to the so-called hazardous industries, while 32 States
cover the “ nonhazardous” as well as the “ hazardous” industries.
4. In Canada occupational diseases are compensable in every
Province except Quebec and Yukon. Such diseases, however, are
limited to those enumerated in the statutory schedule. In the
United States only 6 of the 45 State laws include occupational
diseases, but in these 6 States all occupational diseases are covered.
5. In Canada all of the Provinces except Manitoba, Quebec, and
Yukon have exclusive State insurance funds. In Ontario, however,
employers under schedule 2 (municipalities, railroad, express, tele
phone, telegraph, and navigation) are permitted self-insurance. In
the United States only 8 of the 45 States have exclusive State funds,
while 9 have competitive State funds.
6. In Canada probably the most significant characteristic of com
pensation legislation is the assumption of liability on the part of the
Province. Injured workmen are paid direct by the workmen’s com
pensation board out of the accident fund. This is true, irrespective of
whether or not the employer has contributed his premiums to the fund
and even if the employer is insured or carries his own risk. Failure on
the part of the employer to meet his compensation obligations does
not deprive the injured workman or his dependents of compensation
benefits. This obligation is assumed by the accident fund, which in
turn has redress against the defaulting employer through an action
at law. Under none of the laws in the United States does the State
assume liability. In case of insolvency of the employer and insurance
carrier the injured employee loses his compensation benefits.
7. In Canada the workmen’s compensation boards have exclusive
and final jurisdiction over all compensation matters, no appeal to
the courts being permitted except in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia. In these two Provinces appeal may be had to the supreme
court upon questions of law, but only with the permission of the
judge of said court. In none of the States of America does the
administrative commission have final jurisdiction. In every State
CANADIAN AND AMERICAN LAWS COMPARED.
133
appeal may be had to the courts upon questions of law and in many
of the States upon questions of fact.
8. In Canada members of the workmen’s compensation boards
hold office during good behavior, except that in British Columbia
the term of office is 10 years. In most of the Provinces, however, they
are subject to compulsory retirement at the age of 75. Each board is
authorized to appoint its officers and employees and to fix their
salaries. The term of office of such employees is subject to the
pleasure of the board. In the United States the term of office of
compensation commissioners is usually 3, 4, or 5 years.
9. As regards liberalit}7, the benefits of the Canadian laws are
about on a par with the more liberal of the American acts. The
scale of benefits is considerably lower, but on the other hand the
periods for which benefits are paid are much longer. In Canada
compensation is usually paid during disability or until death or
remarriage of the widow, while in most of the States the compensa
tion periods terminate at the end of 300, 400, or 500 weeks. In
none of the Provinces (Yukon excepted) is the waiting period over
1 week, and in most of the laws compensation when payable begins
from the date of the injury, whereas in the United States 7 States
have a waiting period of 10 days and 13 States of 2 weeks. In all
of the Canadian laws the amount of compensation in case of dis
ability is 55 per cent of the employee’s earnings, except that in
Quebec the percentage is 50; in the United States 20 States have a
percentage of 60 or greater. The early Canadian laws did not provide
for medical benefits, but some of the Provinces have recently
made provision therefor; in the United States 42 of the 45 States
provide medical service. All but five of these States, however,
place some limitation upon the amount of the medical service which
the employer is required to furnish.
COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE SYSTEMS.
All of the Canadian laws are compulsory as to employers coming
within the scope of the act.
In the five Provinces of Alberta,
British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario 3 all
employers must contribute to the accident fund. Quebec and Yukon
Territory have no State fund nor are employers in these jurisdictions
required to insure. Manitoba has a hybrid system. Employers
are required to insure in private casualty companies or provide selfinsurance. Such insurance companies or self-insurers, however,
-must contribute to the accident fund. They must also contribute
71 per cent of their premiums to the administration fund.
3 Except employers enumerated in schedule 2, which includes municipalities, and railroad, express,
telephone, telegraph, and navigation companies. Employers in these industries are individually liable,
though they m ust deposit funds w ith the board, which pays the compensation direct to the injured
employee.
134
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF CANADA.
Out of these accident funds, which are managed by the workmen’s
compensation boards, are paid all compensation claims. The board
classifies the industries according to the hazard, fixes and collects
premiums, receives and investigates claims, grants awards, and pays
the compensation benefits. As already noted, the workmen’s com
pensation board assumes liability. Injured workmen are always
paid direct by the board from the accident fund irrespective of
whether or not the employer is insured or carries his own risk.
Failure on the part of the employer to meet his compensation obliga
tions does not deprive the employee of his compensation benefits.
This obligation is assumed by the accident fund, which in turn has
redress against the defaulting employer through an action at law.
SCOPE OR COVERAGE.
The scope or coverage of the Canadian laws is more restricted
than that of most of the American acts. In all of the Provinces
(Yukon excepted) the employments covered are limited to enumer
ated hazardous industries. Agriculture and domestic service are
universally excluded. Most of the laws also exclude outworkers,
traveling salesmen, nonhazardous clerical occupations, nonhazardous
public employments, and casual employees employed otherwise than
for the purpose of the employer’s business. Alberta also excludes rail
roads. Moreover, the workmen’s compensation boards have been
given discretionary power both to increase and to decrease the scope
of the acts by adding to or subtracting from the industries enumerated
in the statute. Under this authority the original statutory scope of
the acts has been considerably changed. Many new classes of
industries have been added; others have been excluded. In addition,
the Ontario board has exempted certain classes of employers having
less than a stipulated number of employees. The policy of the boards
in including and excluding certain industries is apparently determined
by the hazard of the particular industry and by the administrative
difficulty of collecting premiums in the case of small employers.
Exempted employments usually are given the privilege of coming
under the act if either the employer or employee so desires.
Under all of the Canadian laws employees injured without the Prov
ince are entitled to compensation benefits if the place of business of
the employer and the usual place of employment of the workmen are
in the Province. The following provision found in the Alberta law
is typical of that in the laws of practically all the Provinces:
(1)
Where an accident happens while the workman is employed elsewhere than in
the Province which would entitle him or his dependents to compensation under this
act if it had happened in the Province, the workman or his dependents shall be
entitled to compensation under this act—
(«) If the place or chief place of business of the employer is situate in the Province
and the residence and the usual place of employment of the workman are in the
SCOPE OE COVERAGE.
135
Province and Ms employment out of the Province has immediately followed hia
employment "by the same employer within the Province and has lasted less than
six months; or
(6)
If an accident happens to a workman who is a resident of the Province and the
nature of the employment is such that in the course of the work or service which the
workman performs it is required to be performed both within and without the Prov
ince.
(2)
Except as provided by subsection 1, no compensation shall be payable under
this act where the accident to the workman happens elsewhere than in the Province.
Table 36 shows more in detail the scope of the several Canadian
compensation acts:
T a b le
3 6 .—SCOPE OF C A N A DIA N COM PENSATION LAW S.
E xclusions.1
Inclusions:
Enum erated
hazardous
e m p lo y
ments.
Alberta.........
British Co
lum bia.
M anitoba___
N ew Bruns
w ick.
Nova Scotia,.
Ontario.........
Quebec..........
Outworkers.
Traveling
salesmen.
Nonhazard
ous clerical
occupations.
Casual em
ployees n o t
in usu al
Public and. other em ploym en ts.
course o f
em ployer’s ,
business, i
A lberta........
A lberta........
Alberta........
Alberta........
Alberta (nonhazardous m unici
pal; railroads; itinerant em
ployees).
British Co British Co British Co B ritish Co British Columbia (nonhazardous
lum bia.
public).
lumbia*
lum bia.
lum bia.
M anitob a..
M anitoba. . . M anitoba. . . Manitoba (nonhaxardt>us public).
N ew Bruns N ew Bruns N ew Bruns N ew Bruns N ew Brunswick (provincial).
wick.
wick.
wick.
wick.
Nova Scotia. N ova Scotia.
N ova Scotia. N ova Scotia (nonhazardous pub
lic ),
Ontario........
Ontario........ Ontario (provincial and nonhazardious municipal).
Quebec {public employees; sail
in g vessels*, employees receiv
in g over $1,200 a year and those
working alone),
Y ukon..........
Y ukon.......... Y ukon (employers having less
th an 5 employees).
1Agriculture and domestic service are universally excluded.
ACCIDENTS AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES.
Canadian compensation laws cover both accidents and occupa
tional diseases. The provisions of the British act, both as to
content and phraseology, have been adopted practically without
change in nearly all of the Provinces, Every law except Quebec
uses the phrase “ personal injury by accident arising out of and in
the course of the employment, unless it is attributable solely to the
serious and willful misconduct of the workman.” In four Provinces/
however, injuries due to willful and serious misconduct are compen
sable if they result in death or serious disability. In addition, New
Brunswick excludes injuries if intentionally self-inflicted, due to in
toxication, or caused by a fortuitous event not connected with the
industry. Quebec also excludes intentionally self-inflicted injuries,
while Yukon excludes those caused by intoxication.
4 Alberta, B ritish Columbia, Manitoba, and N ova Scotia.
136
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF CANADA.
As regards occupational diseases the Canadian Provinces followed
the compensation law of Great Britain which originally included the
following diseases and processes:
T a b le
3 7 .—OCCUPATIONAL D ISE A SE SC H E D U LE OF B R IT ISH
PE N SA T IO N LAW OF 190G.
Disease.
W O R K M E N ’S COM
Process.
A nthrax............................................................. Handling of wool, hair, bristles, hides, and skins.
Lead poisoning or its sequelae.................... A ny process involving th e use of lead or its preparations or
compounds.
Mercury poisoning or its sequelae.............. A ny process involving th e use of mercury or its preparations or
compounds.
Phosphorus poisoning or its sequelae___ A ny process involving th e use of phosphorus or its preparations
or compounds.
Arsenic poisoning or its sequelae.............. A ny process involving the use of arsenic or its preparations or
com pounds.
Ankylostomiasis.............................................. Mining.
Manitoba and British Columbia adopted verbatim the British act
of 1906; Alberta and Ontario added miners’ phthisis to the original
list; while Nova Scotia added the three following diseases: Sub
cutaneous cellulitis of the hand (miners’ beat hand), subcutaneous
cellulitis over the patella (miners’ beat knee), and acute bursitis
over the elbow (miners’ beat elbow). New Brunswick did not adopt
the British schedule, but grants compensation benefits for all occu
pational diseases, as determined by the board, contracted in indus
tries within the scope of the act. Quebec and Yukon do not com
pensate for occupational diseases.
However, the foregoing diseases are compensable only if they are
due to the nature of any employment in which the workman was
employed at any time within one year previous to the date of dis
ability. Compensation shall be payable in the first instance by the
last employer.
The latter, however, may recover from other em
ployers whose employment had within the year contributed to the
contraction of the disease.
WAITING PERIOD.
With the exception of Yukon Territory none of the Canadian com
pensation laws have a waiting period of over one week. In two
Provinces the waiting time is only three days. Furthermore, in most
of the Provinces compensation when payable begins from the date
of the injury. Table 38 shows the waiting period for each Province:
T a b l e 3 8 . — W AITING
PE R IO D OF CANADIAN COM PENSATION LAWS.
Waiting period.
Province.
Alberta...............................................................
British Columbia............................................
Manitoba...........................................................
New Brunswick..............................................
Nova Scotia......................................................
Ontario..............................................................
Quebec....................................................... .
Y ukon................................................................
3 days.
3 days.
6 days.
1 week.
6 days.
6 days.
1 week.
13 days.
None if disability lasts 10 days or more.
None if disability is permanent or lasts over 6 days.
None if disability lasts over 6 days.
N o n e if disability lasts over 6 days.
None if totally and permanently disabled.
None if disability lasts over 13 days.
COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
137
COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
The compensation benefits of the Canadian laws are about on a
par with the more liberal American acts. The scale of benefits
is considerably lower, but on the other hand, the periods for which
benefits are paid are much longer, compensation usually being paid
during disability or until death or remarriage of the widow. In
case of death the usual provision is a fixed monthly pension of $20
to the widow, with an additional $5 a month for each child, but
not over $40 in all. In case of disability the usual compensation is
55 per cent of the employee’s earnings, to be paid during disability.
Table 39 shows the per cent of wages paid as compensation, maxi
mum weekly or monthly payments, and maximum period and amount
of compensation payable in case of death, permanent total dis
ability, and partial disability.
3 9 .—P E R CENT OF W AGES PA ID AS COM PENSATION, MAXIMUM W E E K L Y OR
M ONTHLY PA Y M E N T S, A N D MAXIMUM PE R IO D A N D AM OUNT OF COM PENSATION
PA Y A B L E IN CASE OF D E A T H , P E R M A N E N T TOTAL D IS A B IL IT Y , A N D PA R T IA L D IS
A B IL IT Y .
T a b le
Maximum period and amount of compen
sation.
Province.
Per cent
of wages.
M onthly or weekly
m axim um.
Death.
Alberta.................
N ot based
on wages
British Columbia.
55 (disa
bility).
Manitoba..............
55
New Brunswick..
55 (disa
bility).
Nova Scotia.........
55 (disa
bility).
Ontario.................
55 (disa
bility).
Quebec................ .
50 (disa
bility).
50 (tem
porary
total).
Y ukon................. .
(disa
bility).
$40 monthly pension (death);
$16 weekly pension (total
disability).
$40 m onthly pension (d eath);
$22 weekly (total disa
b ility ).
$40 m onthly pension (death);
$22 weekly (total disa
bility).
$40 monthly pension (d eath);
$15.86 weekly (disability).
Perma
nent to
tal disa
bility.
U ntil death or re L i f e
marriage ($2,500). ($2,500).
Partial
disability.
$1,000.
U ntil death or re
marriage.
Life........ During dis
ability.
U ntil death or remarriage.
Life,
U ntil death or re L i f e
marriage ($3,500). ($3,500).
$40 monthly pension (death); U ntil death or re
$13.20 w eekly (total disa
marriage.
bility).
$60 monthly pension (death); U ntil death or re
$22 weekly (total disa
marriage.
bility).
4 years’ earnings
($2,500).
$2,500........................
L ife ....
Life.
During dis
ability.
During disa b ilit y
($1,500).
During dis
ability.
During dis
ability.
L i f e During dis
($2,500).
ability.
$3,000... $3,000.
WEEKLY OR MONTHLY MAXIMUM.
The provisions relative to weekly or monthly maximums differ
widely as between death and disability. In case of death the monthly
maximum is usually $40 (Ontario, $60) but not over 55 per cent of
the employee’s wTages. In case of total disability the weekly maxi
mum amounts range from $13.20 in Nova Scotia to $22 in British
Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. The Quebec and Yukon laws
#make no provision in this regard.
138
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF CANADA.
DEATH .
Compensation benefits in case of death are not based upon wages.
Instead, all of the Provinces except Quebec and Yukon provide a
fixed monthly pension of $20 for the widow ($30 in Ontario) with an
additional $5 for each child ($7.50 in Ontario). Payments to the
children cease at 16 years and to the widow upon death or remar
riage, except that in the latter event she is paid a lump sum equal
to two years’ compensation. Two of the above Provinces have a
maximum limit; in Alberta this limit is $2,500 and in New Bruns
wick $3,500. Under the Quebec law the death benefits are four
years7 earnings of the deceased employee (maximum, $2,500), while
the Yukon law provides a flat sum of $2,500. In addition to the
compensation benefits most of the Provinces provide also for burial
expenses, the maximum allowance usually being $75.
TOTAL DISABILITY.
In all of the Provinces (except Yukon) compensation for total
disability accidents continues during disability and in case of per
manent disability during the life of the injured workman.
Three Provinces, however, provide a maximum limit— Alberta and
Quebec $2,500 and New Brunswick $3,500. In five Provinces
(British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and
Ontario) the amount of compensation is 55 per cent of the employee’s
wages, subject to weekly maximum and minimum limits. In Quebec
the percentage is 50, while in Alberta the amount is not based upon
wages, a weekly pension (maximum $16, minimum $10) being pro
vided instead.
PARTIAL DISABILITY.
The Canadian method of compensating partial disability accidents
differs widely from the popular American method. Most of the laws
in the United States contain a schedule of specified partial disabilities
for which benefits are awarded for stated periods, the weekly pay
ments being based upon a percentage of wages earned at the time of
the injury. In Canada all of the Provinces except Alberta and Yukon
base the amount of compensation upon the wage loss or impairment
of earning, capacity, payments continuing during disability. The
workmen’s compensation boards have authority to formulate partial
disability schedules in which the loss of earning capacity of the various
disabilities is expressed in percentages of total disability. The age
and occupation of the injured workman are usually taken into con
sideration in determining his impairment of earning capacity. One
of these Provinces, however, has a maximum Kmit-^-New Bruns
wick $1,500. Alberta and Yukon have adopted the Washington
method and provide fixed amounts for certain specified injuries.
MEDICAL SERVICE.
139
MEDICAL SERVICE.
Although none of the early Canadian acts provided medical or
surgical service in the present acceptation of the term, some of the
Provinces have recently made provision therefor. Table 40 shows
for each Province the amount of medical and surgical aid and the
conditions under which it is furnished:
T a b le
4 0 . - MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDED UNDER CANADIAN COMPENSATION LAWS.
Maximum amount, and other qualifications.
Province.
Alberta. ....................... Reasonable expenses of last sickness in fatal cases involving no dependents; in other
cases employees fam ished medical aid from employer's hospital fund or State
accident fund to which employees m u st contribute.
British Columbia___ Such service as reasonably necessary; transportation included; special provision
for seam en; employer’s hospital fund perm itted.
Manitoba..................... Such medical attendance as board deem s reasonable; maxim um $100; additional
special treatment in permanent disability cases if compensation costs can be
reduced.
N ew Brunswick........ Such special m edical and surgical treatment as w ill conserve the accident fund and
such first-sad and hospital treatm ent as the board m ay require.
Nova Scotia................ Reasonable service for 30 days in compensable injury cases; additional treatment
if necessary to reduce disability; special provision for seamen; approved estab
lishm ent benefit schemes permitted.
Ontario........................ Necessary service in compensable injury cases; transportation included; approved
establishment benefit schemes permitted.
Quebec......................... No provision.
Y ukon.......................... No provision.
NONRESIDENT ALIEN DEPENDENTS.
With the exception of Quebec all of the Provinces grant com
pensation to nonresident alien dependents but with certain qualifi
cations and restrictions. In Alberta, the law provides that it shall
be conclusively presumed that a workman, two years after his
arrival in Canada, has no nonresident dependents other than his
parents—one year after his arrival in case the workman is not of
British nationality. In British Columbia nonresident alien depend
ents are entitled to compensation, but the board may award such
lesser sum as will, according to the conditions and cost of living in the
place of residence of such dependents, maintain them in a like degree
of comfort as dependents of the same class, residing in Canada and
receiving the full amount of compensation, would enjoy. In the
other five Provinces (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, On
tario, and Yukon) a nonresident alien dependent shall not be entitled
to compensation unless by the law of the country in which he resides
the dependents of a workman to whom an accident happens in such
country, if resident in Canada, would be entitled to compensation.
Moreover, the amount of compensation shall not be greater than
that granted under the foreign law. Furthermore, in Manitoba and
Ontario, nonresident enemy aliens are excluded entirely from the
benefits of the act. Ontario also denies compensation to a resident
of a country “ voluntarily withdrawn from alliance with the British
Empire during the Great War, or of a country in default of establish
140
COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION LAWS OF CANADA.
ing peaceful and harmonious relations with the British Empire.”
The Quebec law does not grant compensation to nonresident alien
dependents.
ADMINISTRATION.
In all of the Provinces except Quebec and Yukon, which have the
court type of law, the administration of the compensation acts is
under workmen’s compensation boards. The members of the boards
are appointed by the lieutenant governor and hold office during
good behavior, except that in British Columbia the term of office is
10 years. In four 5 of the Provinces, however, the commissioners are
subject to compulsory retirement at the age of 75. Each board is
authorized to appoint its officers and emploj^ees and to fix their
salaries. The term of office of such employees is subject to the
pleasure of the board.
The boards have final and exclusive jurisdiction over all compen
sation matters, no appeal to the courts being permitted except in
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In these two Provinces appeal
may be had to the supreme court upon questions of law, but only
with the permission of the judge of said court.
ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
Of the six Canadian Provinces having administrative compen
sation boards, the British Columbia board is the only one which
has statutory jurisdiction over accident-prevention work. In all
of the other Provinces this function is performed by other State or
private agencies. The Alberta and Manitoba compensation laws
made no provision for accident prevention at all, while the laws of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario authorize employers’ associa
tions to undertake this work, with a rather loose supervision by the
workmen’s compensation board.
&Manitoba, New Brunswick, N ova Scotia, and Ontario.
PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF LAWS OF CANADA RELATING TO WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.
Compensation benefits.
Employm ents covered.
Insurance.
Province.
Alberta. Approved Mar. 5,
1908; in effect, Jan. 1, 1909;
amended, 1913. New act,
Apr. 13,1918; in effect, Jan.
1,1919; amended, 1919.
British Columbia. Approved
May 31,1916; in effect Jan.
1917; supersedes act of 1902;
amended, 1919.
Manitoba. Approved Mar.
16, 1910; in effect, Jan. 1,
1911. N ew act, Mar. 10,
1916; in effect, Mar. 1,1917;
amended 1917,1919.
New Brunswick. Approved,
April, 1918; amended, 1919.
N ova Scotia. Approved, Apr.
23, 1915; supersedes act of
1910; amended, 1916, 1917,
1918,1919.
Ontario. Approved, May 1,
1914; in effect, Jan. 1,1915;
amended, 1915, 1916, 1917,
1919.
Public.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz
ardous em ploym ents. Exem p
tions: Railroad?, traveling sales
men, nonhazardous clerical oc
cupations, outworkers, casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business, and itiner
ant employm ents.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz
ardous em ploym ents. Exem p
tions: Farm labor, domestic serv
ice. traveling salesmen, nonhaz
ardous clerical occupations, out
workers, and casual employees
not in usual course ofemployer’s
business. Voluntary, as to exem ptedem ploym ents.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz
ardous employm ents. Exem p
tions: Farm labor, domestic serv
ice, outworkers, nonhazardous
clerical occupations, and casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business. Voluntary,
as to exem pted employments.
Compulsory, as to all
provincial employ
ees and hazardous
municipal employ
m ents.
Employers m ust con
tribute to State acci
dent fund.
Compulsory, as to haz
ardous public em
ployments.
Employers m ust con
tribute to State acci
dent fund.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz Compulsory, as t o m u
nicipal employees,
ardous employm ents. Exem p
tions: Farm labor, domestic serv except members of
police and fire de
ice, outworkers, traveling sales
partments. Volun
men, nonhazardous clerical occu
ta r y ,^ to provincial
pations, and casual employees
ana crown employ
not in usual course ofemployer’s
ees.
business. Voluntary, as to ex
empted employm ents.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz Compulsory, as to haz
ardous public em
ardous employm ents. Exem p
ploym ents, except
tions: Farm labor, domestic servmembers of munici
vice, outworkers, traveling sales
pal police and fire
men, casual employees not in
departments.
usual course of employer’s busi
ness. Voluntary, as to exem pted
employm ents.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz Compulsory, as to haz
ardous municipal
ardous employm ents. Exem p
employments.
tions: Farm laoor, domestic serv
ice, outworkers, and casual em
ployees not in usual course of
employer’s business. Voluntary,
as to exem pted em ploym ent
N o provision.
Quebec. Approved, May 29,
1909; in effect, Jan. 1,1910;
amended, 1914,1915,1918.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz
ardous employm ents. Exem p
tions: Farm labor, sailing vessels,
employees receiving over $1,200
a year, employees who usually
work alone.
Saskatchewan.* Ch. 9,1911;
amended, 1913, 1915, 1916,
1917.
Compulsory, as to enumerated haz Compulsory, as to haz
ardous municipal
ardous employm ents. Exem p
employments.
tions: Farm labor, employees
not engaged in manual labor,
and those receiving over $1,800 a
year.
Compulsory, as to all employments Compuhory, as to all
municipal employ
except those having less than 5
ees and hazardous
employees, outworkers and cas
territorial employ
ual employees not in usual
ments.
course of employer’s business.
Yukon Territory. Approved,
Apr. 24,1917.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
Waiting period.
Per cent of wages.
Private.
Compulsory, as to haz
ardous public em
ployments.
Suits for damages.
Board has exclusive and final ju
risdiction over all matters; no
appeal to courts.
A ll employees under compensa
tion act must report all disabling
accidents w ithin 24 hours to
workmen’s compensation board.
(a) No provision. (6)
Factory inspector;*mine
inspector.^
Alberta.
Workmen’s compen
sation board.
Board has exclusive and final ju
risdiction over all matt3rs; no
appeal to courts.
A ll employers must report all ac
cidents within 3 days to work
m en’s compensation board.
(a) Workmen’s compen
sation board. (6) De
partment o f labor;! de
partment of mines, i
British Columbia.
Administrative
system .
If permanent, fixed amounts for
specified injuries, others propor
tionate; m axim um $1,000. I f
temporary, 55 per ccnt of wage
loss.
Reasonable expenses of last sick
ness in fatal cases involving no
dependents; in other cases em
ployees furnished medical aid
from em ployer’s hospital fund
or State accident fund to which
employees m ust contribute.
Notice before laaving
employment; claim
in 3 months not
barred if just.
Workmen’s compen
sation board.
(a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
disability; w eekly maxim um
$22, m inimum $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
55 per cent of wage loss during dis
ability. Compensation for dis
figurement of bead or face.
Such medical, surgical, and hospi
tal service as reasonably neces
sary; transportation included;
special provision for seamen:
employer’s hospital fund per
mitted..
Notice as soon as prac
ticable; claim in 1
year.
Partial disability.
How compensation claims
settled.
Province.
Death, during life or un til
remarriage of widow.
D isability, during its
continuance.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$100; widow or invalid widower,
m on thly: $5 additional for
each child; m onthly m axim um .
$40; to ta l not over $2,500. (b j
Reasonable expenses of burial
and last sickness.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employm ent, unltss due solely
to serious and willful miscon
duct, except in case of death or
serious and permanent disability.
Enumerated occupational dis
eases included.
3 days..
Disability, 55 per cent. Death: Monthly pension,
maxim um $40, mini
mum $20. Disability:
Weekly m axim um $22;
minimum $5. or actual
wages if less than $5.
Death, during life or un til
remarriage of widlw.
Disability, during its
continuance.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$75; widow or invalid widower,
$20 a m onth; $5 additional for
each child; m onthly maxim um ,
$40. (6) Burial expenses, m axi
m um , $75.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employm ent, unless due solely
to serious and willful miscon
duct except in case of death or
s e r i o u s disability. Enumer
ated occupational diseases in
cluded.
6 days. None if perma Disability 55 per cent. Death: Monthly pension, Death, during life or un til
nently disabled or if
maxim um $40. Dut not
remarriage of widow.
disability continues
over 55 per cent of wages;
Disability, during its
for more than 6 days.
m inim um $20. Disabil
continuance.
ity: Weekly maximum
$22, minimum $6, or
actual wages if less than
$6.
(a) Burial expenses; m axim um, (a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
$75; widow or invalid widower,
disability; weekly maxim um
$20 a month; $5 additional for
$22, minimum $6, or actual
each child; m onthly maximum
wages if less than $6.
$40, but not over 55 per cent o f
wages. (6)
Reasonable ex
penses of burial and last sickness.
55 per cent of wage loss during dis
ability.
Such medical attendance as board
deems reasonable; m axim um ,
$100; additional special treat
ment in permanent disability
cases if compensation costs can
be reduced.
Notice as soon as prac Workmen’s compen
ticable and before
sation board.
leaving employment;
claim in 6 months.
Board has exclusive and final ju
risdiction over all matters; no
appeal to courts.
A ll employers m ust report all dis
abling accidents w ithin 3 days
to workmen’s compensation
board.
(a) N o provision. (6) Bu
reau of labor;! mine in
spector.!
Manitoba.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employm ent, unless intention
ally self-inflicted, due to intoxi
cation, serious and willful m is
conduct, or to a fortuitous event
unconnected w ith the industry.
Occupational diseases included.
1 week.
Disability, 55 per cen t. Death: Monthly pension,
maxim um 55 per cent of
wages; minimum $20.
Disability: W eeklymaxi mum $15.86, m inimum
$3.30.
Death, during life or until
remarriage of widow.
Disability, during its
continuance.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$75; widow or invalid widower,
$20 a month; $5 additional for
each child; m onthly maxim um
not over 55 per cent of wages;
total not over $3,500. (6) B urial
expenses, m axim um , $75.
(a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
disability; w eekly maxim um
$15.86, minimum $3.30; total not
over $3,500.
If temporary, 55 per cent of wage
loss during disability; weekly
m axim um $15.86. If permanent,
amounts proportioned to dis
ability according to scale to be
established b y board; total not
over $1,500.
Such special medical and surgical
treatment as w ill conserve the
accident fund and such first-aid
and hospital treatment as the
board m ay require.
Notice in 14 days;
claim in 1 year.
Workmen’s compen
sation board.
Board has jurisdiction over all mat
ters; appeal to supreme court
upon questions of law, but only
b y permission of such court.
A ll employers under compensa
tion act must report all disabling
accidents w ithin 3 days to
workmen’s compensation board.
(a) No provision, (b) E m
ployers’
associations;
factory inspector.!
N ew Brunswick.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employment unless due solely to
serious and willful misconduct
except in case of death or serious
and permanent disability. Enu
merated occupational diseases
included.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employm ent, unless due solely
to serious and willful miscon
duct. Enumerated
occupa
tional diseases included.
6 days. None if dis
ability continues for
more than 6 days.
Disability, 55 per cen t. Death: Monthly pension, Death, during life or until
m axim um $40. out not
remarriage of widow.
over 55 per cent of wages;
Disability, during its
minimum $20. Disa
continuance.
bility: Weekly m axi
mum $13.20; m inimum
$5, or actual wages if less
than $5.
Disability, 55 per cent. Death: Monthly pension, Death, during life or until
$60, but not over 55 per
remarriage of widow.
Disability, during its
cent of wages; minimum
$20. Disability, m axi
continuance.
mum $22.
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um ,
$75; widow or invalid widower,
$20 a month; $5 additional for
each child; m onthly maximum
$40, but not over 55 per cent of
wages. (6) Burial expenses,
maximum $75.
(a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
disability; w eekly maxim um
$13.20, minimum $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
55 per cent of impairment of earn
in g capacity during disability.
Claim in 1 year..
W orkmen’s compensa Board has jurisdiction over all
tion board.
matters; appeal to supreme
court upon questions of law, but
only b y permission of such
court.
All employers under compensa
tion act must report all disabling
accidents w ithin 3 days to
workmen’s compensation board.
(a) No provision. (6) E m
ployers’ associations;
department o f public
works and mines.!
Nova Scotia
(a) Burial expenses, m axim um , (a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
$75; widow or invalid widower,
disability; weekly maxim um
$30 a month; $7.50 additional for
$22.
each child; m onthly maximum
$60, but not over 55 per cent o f
wages; minimum $20 for widow ,
$5 for child, $40 in all. (6) Rea
sonable expenses of burial and
last sickness.
55 per cent of impairment of earn
ing capacity during disability.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital service for SO days in
compensable injury cases; ad
ditional treatment if necessary
to reduce disability; approved
establishm ent benefit schemes
permitted; special provision for
seamen.
Neccssary medical, surgical, and
hospital service in compensable
injury cases; transportation in
cluded; approved establishment
benefit schemes permitted.
(a) Expenses of burial and last
sickness, maxim um $25; 4 years’
earnings; but only one-fourth o f
annual earnings in excess of $800
shall be taken into account;
total not over $2,500 or under
$1,000.
Amount recoverable shall not ex
ceed 3 year’s earnings or $1,800.
whichever is larger, and shall
never exceed $2,000.
(a) (6) 50 per cent of wages during
disability; weekly m inimum $4
in case of temporary disability;
total not over $2,500.
50 per cent of wage loss.
Amount recoverable shall not ex
ceed 3 years’ earnings or $1,800.
whichever is larger, and shall
never exceed $2,000.
(a) $2,500. (b) Expenses of burial
and last sickness, maximum.
$500.
(a) $3,000. (6) 50 per cent of
wages during disability but for
not over 6 months.
Waivers forbidden,
but approved hos
pital plans per
m itted.
Employers m ust in Ptrm itted only in re Waivers forbidden___
sure in private com
employments n o t
panies or provide
under compensation
self-insurance; insur
act, if injury due to
employer’s n e g l i
ance companies and
gence; defenses abroself-insurers m ust
contribute to State
“ accident fund out
of which claims are
paid.
Permitted only in re Waivers forbidden.
Employers m ust con
em ploym ents n o t
tribute to State acci
under compensation
dent fund, but board
act, if injury duo to
m ay sanction insur
employer’s
negli
ance in private com
gence ; defenses abro
panies.
gated.
6 days. None If dis
ability continues for
more than 6 days.
Permitted only in re
Employers u n d e r
employments under
schedule 1 must
compensation acts,
contribute to State
if injury due to em
accident fund; em
ployer’s negligence;
ployers under sched
defenses abrogated.
ule 2(cities,railroad,
express, telephone,
telegraph, ana navi
gation) are individu
ally liable, but board
m ay require them t o
insure.
N ot required................. Not permitted.
Waivers forbidden.
Waivers forbidden----- Accidents b y reason of or in the
course of tneir work, unless in
tentionally self-inflicted.
1 week. None if to
tally and perma
nently disabled.
N ot required.,
Permitted in lieu of
compensation after
injury.
Waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employment.
6 days..
N ot required.,
Permitted in lieu of
compensation after
injury, if employer
was negligent; de
fenses abrogated.
Waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in course of the
employment, unless due to in
toxication, or serious and w illful
misconduct.
13 days. None if dis
ability continues for
more than 13 days.
Disability, 50 per cent.
Temporary total disbility, 50 per cent.
Temporary total disabil
ity, 6 months.
1N ot provided for in compensation law.
(a) (b). $10 a week; $2 a week ad
ditional for first dependent, $1
for each additional dependent;
weekly m axim um $16; $7.50 if
employee is under 21 and has no
dependents; total not over $2,500.
Notice as soon as prac Workmen’s compen
ticable and before
sation board.
leavingemployment:
claim in 6 months.
Board has exclusive and final ju
risdiction over all matters; em
ployers individually liable m ay
make direct settlem ents w ith
employers w ith approval of
board; no appeal to courts.
A ll employers m ust report all ac
cidents which cause disability
or necessitate medical aid w ithin
3 days to workmen’s compensa
tion board.
(a) No provision. (6) Em Ontario.
ployers’
associations;
department o f public
works;1
bureau
of
m in es.1
No provision.
Claim in 1 year..
Courts.
Voluntary agreement between
parties; disputed cases settled by
courts.
No provision..
(a) N o commission, (b)
Department of public
works and labor;1 mine
inspector.1
Quebec.
Amount recoverable shall not ex
ceed 3 years’ earnings or $1,800,
whichever is larger, and shall
never exceed $2,000.
No provision.
Claim in 6 months..
Courts.
B y courts.
No provision.
(a) N o commission.
Bureau of labor.1
(6)
Saskatchewan.
For specified injuries, fixed
amounts ranging from $150 to
$2,000, others proportioned to
degree of total disability; m axi
m um $3,000.
No provision.
Notice as soon as
practicable; claim in
6 months.
Courts.
Voluntary agreement between
parties; disputed cases settled by
courts.
No provision..............................
(a) No commission.
Mine inspector.1
(6)
Yukon.
* The Saskatchewan workmen’s compensation law is practically an employer’s liability act.
172308—20. (To face page 140.)
Accident prevention work
by— (a) Compensation
commission. (6) Other
agencies.
Time for notice and
claim.
Death: Monthly pension,
maxim um $-10, m ini
mum $20. Total disa
bility: Weekly pension,
maximum $16; m ini
mum $10.
Permitted only in re
employm ents not
under compensation
act, if injury due to
employer’s n e g l i
gence; defenses abro-
Waivers forbidden. -.
Maximum period.
Accident reports required.
Medical and surgical aid.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(b) Temporary.
Not bas 2 d on wages. . .
W aivers forbidden, but Personal injuries b y accident aris
ing out of and in the course of the
approved hospital
employm ent, unless due solely
plans permitted.
to serious and willful miscon
duct except in case of death or
serious disability. Enumerated
occupational diseases included.
Permitted only in re
employments not
under compensation
act, if injury due to
to employer’s neg
ligence: defenses ab
rogated.
Death.
(а) Dependents.
(б) N o dependents.
3 days. None if dis
ability continues for
10 days or more.
Not permitted.
Employers must con
tribute to State acci
dent fund.
Maximum and minimum
weekly compensation
payments.
O
@FedFRASER