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
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ROYAL MEEKER, Commissioner
A fl
BULLETIN OF TH E U NITED STATES \
j V T ,*
O
B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T I S T I C S / ................. } lN U , L I U
WORKMEN’S
INSURANCE
AND
COMPENSATION
SERIES
COMPARISON OF WORKMEN’S COM
PENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES UP TO DECEMBER 31, 1917
By CARL HOOKSTADT
MAY, 1918
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1918
CONTENTS.
Page.
1ntroduction........................................... ......................................................................... b -lz
Tendencies in legislation........................................................................................
5-9
History of compensation legislation............................................................................ 9-12
Systems provided for.......................................................................................................12-16
Scope of the laws............................................................................................................. 16-34
Hazardous employments........................................................................................ 19, 20
Numerical exemptions............................................................................................ 20, 21
Agriculture................................................................................................................
21
Domestic service......................................................................................................
21
Public employees..................................................................................................... 21, 22
Casual labor............................................................................................................... 22, 23
Employments not for gain......................................................................................
23
Extraterritoriality....................................................................................................
23
Miscellaneous exemptions...................................................................................... 23, 24
Interstate commerce...................... I ....................................................................... 24-26
Number of persons subject to compensation acts.............................................. 26-34
How election is made.....................................................................................................
35
Abrogation of defenses.................................................................................................... 35, 36
Suits for damages............................................................................................................. 36-38
Special contracts.............................................................................................................. 38, 39
Burden of cost.................................................................................................................. 39, 40
Security of payments......................................................................................................40, 41
State supervision over insurance and regulation of rates........................................ 41, 42
Injuries covered............................................................................................................... 42-48
Accidents...................................................................................................................
44
Injuries...................................................................................................................... 44, 45
Arising out of and in course of employment...................................................... 45-47
Exemptions due to employee’s fault................................................................... 47, 48
Waiting period................................................................................................................. 48, 49
Compensation benefits.................................................................................................... 49-72
Scale........................................................................................................................... 50-53
Per cent of wages..................................................................................................... 53, 54
Weekly maximum and minimum........................................................................
54
Death.......................................................................................................................... 54, 55
Total disability........................................................................................................
56
Partial disability...................................................................................................... 56, 57
Compensation for disfigurement............................................................................ 57, 58
Comparison of schedules......................................................................................... 58-72
Medical and surgical aid................................................................................................ 72-82
Kind of service......................................................................................................... 76, 77
Selection of physicians........................................................................................... 77-82
Selection by employer.................................................................................... 78, 79
Selection by employee.................................................................................... 79-82
3
4
CO N TEN TS.
Page.
Time for notice and claim.............................................................................................. 82 , 8 6
Administrative systems.................................................................................................. 83-85
Settlement of compensation cases................................................................................. 85-87
Revision of benefits.........................................................................................................
87
Nonresident alien beneficiaries..................................................................................... 87-89
Lump-sum settlements................................................................................................... 90-92
Accident reporting and prevention.............................................................................. 92-95
Accident reporting................................................................................................... 93, 94
Accident prevention......................................................... ..................................... 94, 95
Summary comparison......................................................... .......................................... 95-100
Chart..................................................................................................... Following page
101
BULLETIN OF THE
U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
NO. 240.
WASHINGTON.
May, m s.
COMPARISON OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.
INTRODUCTION.
T h is b u lle tin , s u m m a r iz in g a n d c o m p a r in g th e p r in c ip a l fe a tu r e s
o f th e w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n la w s o f th e s e v e r a l S ta te s a n d
T e r r it o r ie s , is a r e v is io n o f a s tu d y m a d e in 1916 a n d p u b lis h e d as
a p a r t o f B u lle t in N o . 203. I t c o v e r s a ll la w s e n a c te d u p t o D e c e m
b e r 31, 1917. S in c e th e p u b lic a t io n o f th e fo r m e r r e p o r t 27 S ta te s
h a v e a m e n d e d o r s u p p le m e n te d th e ir c o m p e n s a t io n la w s , w h ile 5
n e w S ta te s h a v e b e e n a d d e d t o th e lis t o f th o s e h a v in g su ch la w s ,
m a k in g a to t a l o f 40 S ta te s, T e r r it o r ie s , a n d in s u la r p o s s e s s io n s
h a v in g w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n la w s o n t h e ir s ta tu te b o o k s a t th e
p re s e n t tim e . T h is b u lle t in w a s p r e p a r e d in th e la tte r p a r t o f 1917,
a n d w h e n th e te r m “ th is y e a r ” is u se d it r e fe r s to th e y e a r 1917.
TENDENCIES IN LEGISLATION.
C e r ta in p r o v is io n s o f w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n la w s a re m o r e
s u s c e p tib le o f c h a n g e a n d r e v is io n th a n o th e r s. T h e s c o p e o f th e a cts
a n d th e p a r t ia l d is a b ilit y sch e d u le s, f o r e x a m p le , h a v e u n d e r g o n e v e r y
lit t le c h a n g e s in c e t h e ir in it ia l e n a c tm e n t, w h ile th e w a it in g p e r io d
a n d p a r t i c u l a r ^ th e r e q u ir e m e n ts as t o m e d ic a l s e r v ic e a re in a c o n
sta n t sta te o f flu x .
C o m p e n s a t io n c o m m is s io n e r s a re n o t a lw a y s
fa m ilia r w it h th e e x p e r ie n c e a n d re su lts o f c o m p e n s a tio n la w s in o t h e r
S ta te s. T h is u n fa m ilia r it y , to g e t h e r w it h th e h u m a n p r o n e n e s s t o
o v e r v a lu e th o s e th in g s t o w h ic h o n e h a s b e e n a c c u s to m e d , h a s le d
m a n y o f th e c o m m is s io n s n o t o n ly t o p r e fe r th e ir o w n t y p e o f la w b u t
a lso t o c o n s id e r it s u p e r io r to a ll o th e rs. T h e s e fa c t s a re o f e s p e c ia l
im p o r ta n c e , th e r e fo r e , t o S ta te s h a v in g u n d e r c o n s id e r a t io n th e a d o p
tio n o f a c o m p e n s a tio n la w . T h e f o l l o w i n g s u m m a r y s h o w s so m e o f
th e m o r e im p o r t a n t s ta tu to r y c h a n g e s w h ic h h a v e o c c u r r e d in th e 35
S ta te s a n d T e r r it o r ie s h a v in g h a d w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n e x p e r i
e n ce .1 A la r g e m a jo r it y o f th ese c h a n g e s w e r e e n a c te d th is y e a r.
1 The five States which enacted compensation laws in 1917 have not been taken into
account in the following analysis.
5
6
COMPARISON OF WORKM EN *S COMPENSATION LAWS.
Compensation and insurance systems.—There has been considerable
dissatisfaction with the elective feature of compensation laws. A large
proportion of employers in many of the 2 i States having such elec
tive laws have refused to accept the compensation provisions, thus
depriving their employees of the benefits of this legislation. Notwith
standing this fact and also the fact that several compensation com
missions have recommended a change from the elective to the compul
sory system, only one of the 26 elective compensation States (Illinois)
substituted the compulsory for the elective system. On the other
hand, of the eight States in which employers were not required to
insure, four1 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.
IScope.— T h e s c o p e o f th e v a r io u s a cts, i. e. th e e m p lo y m e n t s c o v
e r e d , h a s o n th e w h o le r e m a in e d q u ite s ta tio n a r y . N o n e o f th e S ta te s
w h ic h o r ig in a lly e x c lu d e d a g r ic u ltu r e , d o m e s tic s e r v ic e , o r n o n h a z a r d o u s in d u s tr ie s h a s la te r in c lu d e d su ch e m p lo y m e n ts , a lt h o u g h s e v
e r a l la w s in w h ic h o n ly e n u m e r a te d h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n ts w e r e
c o v e r e d h a v e a d d e d a fe w m in o r e m p lo y m e n ts t o e n u m e r a te d s ta tu
t o r y lists. T h e m o r e im p o r t a n t o f th ese in 1917 w e r e th e in c lu s io n in
th e N e w Y o r k la w o f h o t e ls h a v in g 50 o r m o r e r o o m s a n d th e r e p e a l o f
th e p r o v is io n in T e x a s e x e m p t in g c o t t o n g in n in g . T w o S t a t e s 2 s u b
s e q u e n tly in c lu d e d p u b lic e m p lo y e e s a ft e r h a v in g m a d e n o p r o v is io n
t h e r e fo r in th e o r ig in a l a cts. I n o n e p a r t ic u la r , h o w e v e r , th e s c o p e o f
th e c o m p e n s a tio n a cts h a s b e e n c o n s id e r a b ly in c re a s e d . S e v e n te e n
S ta te s o r ig in a lly e x e m p t e d e m p lo y e r s h a v in g less th a n a s tip u la t e d
n u m b e r o f e m p lo y e e s . O f th ese, 3 S t a t e s 3 h a v e r e d u c e d th e n u m b e r
o f e m p lo y e e s a n d 2 S t a t e s 4 h a v e a b o lis h e d th e n u m e r ic a l e x e m p t io n
p r o v is io n a lto g e th e r . M a n y o f th e S ta te s o r ig in a lly e x e m p t e d ca su a l
e m p lo y m e n ts b u t th e r e is a t e n d e n c y t o a b o lis h th is e x e m p t io n . O f
th e 1 3,500,0 0 0 e m p lo y e e s 5 c o v e r e d b y th e 35 S ta te c o m p e n s a t io n la w s
a p p r o x im a t e ly 20 0 ,0 0 0 , o r less th a n 2 p e r ce n t, h a v e b ee n a d d e d su b se
q u e n t to th e in it ia l e n a c tm e n t o f th e la w s.
Waiting period .— T h e w a it in g p e r io d h a s b e e n c h a n g e d in 13
S ta te s, 2 6 o f w h ic h h a v e m a d e t w o su cce ssiv e ch a n g e s. O f th ese, 11
S t a t e s 7 r e d u c e d th e w a it in g p e r i o d ; 1 S t a t e 8 firs t in c r e a s e d its w a it1 California, Illinois, Nebraska, and New Jersey.
2 Oregon and Rhode Island.
* Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
4 Nebraska and Nevada.
5 These figures are computed from the United States Census of Occupations of 1910 ;
for more detailed information see pp. 26—34.
California and Connecticut.
7 From two weeks to one week, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, and Verm ont; from two weeks to 10 days, Massachusetts;
from three weeks to two weeks, Colorado. For the sake of simplicity, all jurisdictions
are referred to as States.
8 California
INTRODUCTION-.
7
m g p e r io d fr o m 1 w e e k t o 2 w e e k s a n d th e n r e d u c e d it t o 10 d a y s ;
a n d 1 S t a t e 1 in c r e a s e d th e p e r io d f r o m 1£ d a y s t o 7 d a y s . I n a d d i
t io n s e v e r a l S ta te s h a v e a b o lis h e d th e w a it in g p e r io d e n t ir e ly in
c e r ta in cases. O f th ese, 6 S t a t e s 2 a b o lis h e d th e w a it in g p e r io d i f th e
d is a b ilit y e x ce e d s sta te d p e r io d s , w h ile 1 S t a t e 8 a b o lis h e d th e w a it in g
tim e in p a r t ia l d is a b ilit y in ju r ie s .
Compensation scale;— S o m e o f th e fa c t o r s e n t e r in g in t o th e c o m
p e n s a tio n s c a le h a v e r e m a in e d q u ite r ig id w h ile o th e r s h a v e b een
r e la t iv e ly m o r e s u s ce p tib le o f c h a n g e . I n p r a c t ic a lly a ll o f th e S ta te s
th e c o m p e n s a t io n p a y m e n ts a re b a se d u p o n th e w a g e s o f th e in ju r e d
e m p lo y e e , r a n g in g g e n e r a lly f r o m 50 t o 6 6 f p e r cen t. O n ly 6
S t a t e s 4 h a v e m a t e r ia lly in c re a s e d th e ir o r ig in a l p e r c e n ta g e s . O f
th ese M a ssa c h u se tts a n d N e b r a s k a in c r e a s e d th e sc a le fr o m 50 t o 6 6 §
p e r c e n t ; K a n s a s a n d M in n e s o ta f r o m 50 t o 60 p e r c e n t ; a n d I l l in o i s
a n d N e v a d a m a d e v a r y in g in cre a se s in c e r t a in ca ses. E i g h t S ta te s 5
in c r e a s e d t h e ir w e e k ly m a x im u m c o m p e n s a tio n lim its . E ig h t S ta te s
a ls o in c r e a s e d th e p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h c o m p e n s a t io n sh a ll b e p a id .
O f th ese, 4 6 in c r e a s e d th e p e r io d in ca se o f d e a t h ; 6 7 in ca se o f t o t a l
d is a b ilit y ; a n d 2 8 in ca se o f p a r t ia l d is a b ility . H o w e v e r , p r o b a b ly
th e m o s t in e la s tic f a c t o r o f th e c o m p e n s a tio n s c a le is th e s c h e d u le f o r
p e r m a n e n t p a r t ia l d is a b ility . O f th e 28 S ta te s h a v in g su ch sc h e d u le s
o n ly 2 9 h a v e m a t e r ia lly in c r e a s e d th e c o m p e n s a t io n p e r io d s o r
a m o u n t s ; 1 10 h a s s lig h t ly in c r e a s e d th e a m o u n ts in in d iv id u a l c a s e s ;
w h ile 1 11 h a s r e d u c e d th e p e r io d s c o n s id e r a b ly . T'Wo S t a t e s 12 h a v e
m a t e r ia lly e n la r g e d th e lis t o f in ju r ie s in th e s c h e d u le w it h o u t in
c r e a s in g th e c o m p e n s a tio n p e r io d s , w h ile l 13 p r o v id e d f o r a n e w
s c h e d u le . I n a d d it io n , T e x a s in c r e a s e d its s c h e d u le s u b s ta n tia lly
b o t h as t o lis t o f in ju r ie s a n d as t o c o m p e n s a tio n p e r io d s b u t it a ls o
a m e n d e d its la w b y m a k in g su ch c o m p e n s a tio n s in lie u o f a l l o t h e r
p a y m e n ts w h e re a s fo r m e r ly su ch p a y m e n ts w e r e in a d d it io n t o a ll
o th e r c o m p e n s a tio n .
Medical service .— T h e p r o v is io n s as t o m e d ic a l s e r v ic e h a v e u n d e r
g o n e g r e a te r c h a n g e th a n a n y o t h e r fe a tu r e o f th e w o r k m e n ’s c o m I Washington.
a Louisiana, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming.
* Hawaii.
4 Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Nevada.
5 Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, and West
Virginia.
6 Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, and Ohio.
7 Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin.
8 Massachusetts and Nevada.
9 Washington and Wisconsin.
i° Wyoming.
II Nebraska.
12 Hawaii and Nebraska.
18 Kansas.
8
COMPARISON OP W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATION LAW S.
p e n s a tio n la w s. S ix t e e n S t a t e s 1 h a v e in c r e a s e d th e m e d ic a l s e r v
ic e o r ig in a lly p r o v id e d , e ith e r as t o m a x im u m a m o u n ts o r le n g t h o f
t im e d u r in g w h ic h su ch m e d ic a l s e r v ic e is t o b e fu r n is h e d . I n
th re e o f th ese S t a t e s 2 th e m a x im u m lim it h a s b e e n a b o lis h e d e n
t ir e ly a n d e m p lo y e r s m u st p r o v id e m e d ic a l a tte n d a n c e as lo n g as
r e a s o n a b ly n e ce ssa ry . M o s t o f th ese in cre a se s w e r e p r o v id e d f o r th is
y e a r. S ta te le g is la tu r e s a n d c o m p e n s a tio n c o m m is s io n s seem a t la st
t o r e a liz e th e fa c t th a t a d e q u a te m e d ic a l a n d h o s p it a l s e r v ic e is a b s o
lu t e ly e ss e n tia l f o r th e c o m p le t e e c o n o m ic r e h a b ilit a t io n o f in ju r e d
w o r k m e n . T h e r e is a lso a te n d e n c y t o w a r d c lo s e r S ta te s u p e r v is io n
o v e r th e q u a lit y o f th e m e d ic a l s e r v ic e fu r n is h e d b y e m p lo y e r s . A
n u m b e r o f S ta te s th is y e a r a u th o r iz e d c o m p e n s a tio n c o m m is s io n s to
a p p r o v e o r s u p e r v is e h o s p it a ls a n d b e n e fit fu n d s m a in ta in e d b y e m
p lo y e r s . T h e r e is a lso a tr e n d t o w a r d a llo w in g th e in ju r e d e m p lo y e e
t o s e le ct h is o w n p h y s ic ia n . F o r th e first tim e in th e h is t o r y o f th e
c o m p e n s a t io n le g is la t io n in th is c o u n t r y e m p lo y e e s h a v e b e e n s p e c ifi
c a lly g iv e n th e r ig h t to c h o o s e th e p h y s ic ia n w h e n th e c o s t o f th e
m e d ic a l s e r v ic e is p a id b y th e e m p lo y e r . T h r e e S t a t e s 3 a m e n d e d
t h e ir la w s t o t h a t e ffe c t in 1917.
Administrative system ,.— N e b r a s k a is th e o n ly S ta te w h ic h h a s m a
t e r ia lly c h a n g e d its sy ste m o f a d m in is t r a t io n s in c e 1913, a c o m p e n s a
t io n c o m m is s io n e r h a v in g b ee n p r o v id e d f o r th is y e a r , th u s r e p la c in g
th e fo r m e r m e th o d o f a d m in is t r a t io n b y th e c o u r ts . T h e o r ig in a l
c o m p e n s a t io n la w s o f I llin o is a n d N e v a d a , e n a c te d in 1911, a lso , d id
n o t p r o v id e f o r a d m in is tr a tiv e sy ste m s, b u t b o t h S ta te s c r e a te d a d
m in is t r a t iv e c o m m is s io n s in 1913. I n a d d it io n , th e d e p a r t m e n t o f
la b o r in N e w J e r s e y h a s b ee n g iv e n lim it e d a d m in is tr a tiv e s u p e r
v is io n o v e r th e a c t in th a t S ta te , a n d M a ssa ch u se tts h a s a b o lis h e d
th e a r b it r a t io n c o m m itte e sy stem .
Sectional variations .— A r e v ie w o f th e w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a t io n
la w s o f th e s e v e r a l S ta te s b r in g s o u t th re e s ig n ific a n t fa c ts . O n e
is th e a b se n ce o f th ese la w s in th e S o u th e r n S ta te s, N o r t h D a k o t a
b e in g th e o n ly o n e o f th e r e m a in in g 1 1 4 n o n c o m p e n s a t io n S ta te s n o t
in th is s e c tio n o f th e c o u n t r y ; a n o th e r is th e r e fu s a l o f m o s t S ta te s
t o b e g u id e d b y th e e x p e r ie n c e o f o th e r S t a t e s ; a n d th e t h ir d is
th e in c lin a t io n o f th e f a r W e s t e r n S ta te s t o s tr ik e o u t a lo n g n e w
lin e s , as s h o w n b y th e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s :
T h e o n ly S t a t e s 5 w h ic h h a v e e s ta b lis h e d m o n o p o lis t ic S ta te in s u r
a n ce sy stem s a re in th e f a r W e s t. A ls o , th e o n ly S t a t e s 6 w h ic h h a v e
1 California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Nevada, Ohio, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
2 California, Connecticut, and Porto Rico.
8 Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington.
4 Not counting the District of Columbia.
* Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. (Porto Rico also has a monopolistic
State insurance fund.)
•Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
H ISTO RY OF COM PENSATION LEGISLATION.
9
e s ta b lis h e d p e n s io n sy ste m s, th e a m o u n ts p r e s u m a b ly b a s e d u p o n
th e n e e d o f th e w o r k m a n o r h is d e p e n d e n ts r a th e r th a n u p o n lo s s
o f e a r n in g p o w e r , a re in th e fa r W e s t. W a s h in g t o n is th e o n ly
S ta te p r o v id in g f o r th e a d m in is t r a t io n o f m e d ic a l s e r v ic e t h r o u g h
lo c a l m e d ic a l a id b o a r d s , p a tte r n e d a ft e r th e G e r m a n sy stem . T h e
o n ly la w s w h ic h p r o v id e f o r th e m a in te n a n c e o f e m p lo y e r s ’ h o s p ita l
b e n e fit fu n d s t o w h ic h th e e m p lo y e e is r e q u ir e d to c o n t r ib u t e h is p r o
p o r t io n a t e s h a re h a v e b e e n e n a c te d b y fa r W e s t e r n S ta te s.1 A n d o f
th e th re e S t a t e s 2 in w h ic h th e a d m in is tr a tiv e c o m m is s io n s are a u
t h o r iz e d t o a n d h a v e fo r m u la t e d e la b o r a te s c h e d u le s f o r p e r m a n e n t
p a r t ia l d is a b ilitie s b a s e d as fa r as p o s s ib le u p o n th e a c tu a l lo s s o f
e a r n in g p o w e r , t w o a re in th e f a r W e s t.
O n e r e g r e t t a b le f a c t in c o n n e c t io n w it h th e e n a c tm e n t o f w o r k
m e n ’s c o m p e n s a t io n le g is la t io n , as a lr e a d y n o te d , is th e d is in c lin a
t io n o f m o s t S ta te s t o be g u id e d b y th e e x p e r ie n c e d e v e lo p e d u n d e r
th e la w s o f o th e r S ta te s. T h e t y p e o f la w , in c lu d in g sc o p e , c o m
p e n s a tio n sca le , a d m in is t r a t iv e sy ste m , e tc., u s u a lly a d o p te d b y a
S ta te is d e te r m in e d g e n e r a lly b y t w o fa c t o r s — c o n t ig u it y a n d th e
e c o n o m ic a n d p o lit ic a l p r o g r e s s iv e n e s s o f th e S ta te . A n e x a m in a
tio n o f th e la w s o f th e fiv e S ta te s e n a c t in g c o m p e n s a tio n la w s in
1917 s h o w s th a t th e se t w o fa c t o r s w e r e m o s t in flu e n tia l in d e te r m in
in g th e t y p e o f la w e n a c te d . T h e fa r W e s t e r n S ta te s e s p e c ia lly h a v e
b e e n in c lin e d t o p a tte r n th e ir la w s a ft e r th o s e a d o p te d b y c o n t ig u o u s
S ta te s , d u e in p a r t to th e fa c t th a t, o w in g t o th e g r e a t d is ta n c e s , in v e s
t ig a t in g c o m m is s io n s a n d o th e r s r e s p o n s ib le f o r th e e n a c tm e n t o f
th e la w s h a v e fo u n d it in e x p e d ie n t t o a c q u a in t th e m se lv e s w it h th e e x
p e r ie n c e o f th e E a s t e r n S ta te s b y p e r s o n a l in v e s tig a tio n s . E v e n
t u a lly , n o d o u b t, a ll o f th e S ta te s w ill a d o p t th o s e c o m p e n s a tio n la w s
w h ic h s h a ll h a v e b e e n e m p ir ic a lly p r o v e d t o b e th e b est, b u t a p
p a r e n t ly it is n e ce s s a r y f o r e a ch S ta te t o a tta in th is t h r o u g h e x p e r i
en ce a lon e.
• HISTORY OF COMPENSATION LEGISLATION.*
C o m p e n s a tio n le g is la t io n in th e U n it e d S ta te s is o f r e ce n t o r ig in .
T h e firs t p e r m a n e n t S ta te la w s w e r e e n a c te d b y W a s h in g t o n a n d
K a n s a s o n M a r c h 14, 1911. T h e first la w t o b e c o m e e ffe c tiv e , h o w
e v e r , w a s th e o n e e n a c te d b y W is c o n s in M a y 3, 1911, w h ic h t o o k e f
fe c t im m e d ia t e ly u p o n its p a ssa g e . S in c e th e n c o m p e n s a t io n le g is la
t io n h a s p r o g r e s s e d r a p id ly , 37 S ta te s a n d 3 T e r r it o r ie s h a v in g p la c e d
1 Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Washington.
2 California, Washington, and West Virginia.
3 For a more complete history of compensation legislation, see Bulletin of U. S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, No. 203, pp. 45-50.
10
COM PARISON OF w o r k m e n ' s
COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
su ch la w s u p o n t h e ir s ta tu te b o o k s ,1 w h ile th e F e d e r a l a c t h a s b e e n
a m e n d e d t o in c lu d e a ll c iv il e m p lo y e e s .
P r i o r t o 1911, h o w e v e r , s e v e r a l S ta te s h a d e n a c te d w o r k m e n ’s
c o m p e n s a t io n la w s w h ic h w e r e la te r d e c la r e d u n c o n s t itu t io n a l b y
th e c o u r t s ; a n d in a d d it io n v o lu n t a r y in s u r a n c e o r b e n e fit sch e m e s
h a d b ee n p r o v id e d f o r in a n u m b e r o f S ta te s b u t th e se c o u ld h a r d ly
b e d e s ig n a te d c o m p e n s a t io n la w s as n o w u n d e r s t o o d . T h e f o l l o w i n g
is a b r ie f s u m m a r y o f th ese e a r ly a c t s :
'1'he firs t le g is la t io n in th e U n it e d S ta te s p r o v id i n g f o r sta te d b e n e
fits p a y a b le w it h o u t su it o r p r o o f o f n e g lig e n c e w a s th e c o o p e r a t iv e
in s u r a n c e la w o f M a r y la n d . T h is a ct w a s o f r e s t r ic t e d a p p lic a t io n ,
in c lu d e d o n ly m in in g , q u a r r y in g , r a ilw a y s , a n d m u n ic ip a l c o n s t r u c
t io n w o r k , a n d w a s t o b e a d m in is te r e d b y th e S ta te in s u r a n c e c o m
m is s io n . T h e la w w a s d e c la r e d u n c o n s t itu t io n a l, h o w e v e r , as d e
p r i v i n g p a r tie s o f th e r ig h t o f t r ia l b y ju r y a n d c o n f e r r in g o n an
e x e c u tiv e ju d ic ia l o r a t le a st q u a s i-ju d ic ia l fu n c t io n s .
T h e n e x t la w w it h in th e t e r r it o r ia l ju r is d ic t io n o f th e U n it e d
S ta te s w a s a n e n a c tm e n t b y th e U n it e d S ta te s P h ilip p in e C o m m is s io n
in 1905, a u t h o r iz in g th e c o n tin u a n c e o f w a g e s f o r a p e r io d d u r in g
d is a b ilit y , b u t n o t e x c e e d in g 90 d a y s , in c a s e o f in ju r y r e c e iv e d b y
th e e m p lo y e e s o f th e I n s u la r G o v e r n m e n t in th e lin e o f d u ty .
T h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t e n a c te d a lim it e d c o m p e n s a tio n la w in
1908, b u t a p p lic a b le o n ly t o c e r ta in h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n ts .
I n 1909 M o n ta n a e n a c te d a la w (e ffe c t iv e O c t. 1, 1 9 1 0 ) p r o v id in g
f o r th e m a in te n a n c e o f a S ta te e o o p e r a t iv e fu n d f o r m in e r s a n d
la b o r e r s in a n d a b o u t th e c o a l m in e s o f th e S ta te . C o n t r ib u t io n t o
th e fu n d w a s c o m p u ls o r y , e m p lo y e r s t o p a y o n th e b a sis o f th e t o n
n a g e o f c o a l m in e d , a n d e m p lo y e e s o n th e b a s is o f t h e ir m o n t h ly
g r o s s e a r n in g s . S ta te o ffic ia ls w e r e t o a d m in is te r th e fu n d , a n d p a y
m e n ts f o r d e a th a n d d is a b ilit y w e r e p r o v id e d fo r . W h ile c o m p u li The following States, etc., have enacted compensation laws:
State.
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............
Approved.
Mar. 14,1911
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
Effective.
Oct.
Jan.
July
July
Sept.
Jan.
May
May
Jan.
July
Sept.
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
July
Sept.
July
July
Oct.
Jan.
July
Nov.
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
1.1914
1.1913
1.1914
17,1913
1.1913
1.1914
1.1914
1.1914
State.
Approved.
Effective.
Louisiana.......
Wyoming.......
Indiana..........
Montana.........
Oklahoma......
Vermont........
Maine.............
Colorado.........
Hawaii...........
Alaska............
Pennsylvania.
Kentucky......
Porto Rico___
South Dakota.
New Mexico...
Utah..............
Idaho.............
Delaware........
June 18,1914
Feb. 27,1915
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. 13,1916
Mar. 10,1917
Mar. 13,1917
Mar. 15,1917
Mar. 16,1917
Apr. 2,1917
Jan. 1.1915
Apr. 1.1915
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
June 8.1917
July 1.1917
Jan. 1.1918
Do.
United States.
New act...
May 30,1908 Aug. 1,1908
Sept. 7,1916 Sept. 7,1916
H ISTO R Y OP COM PENSATIO N LEGISLATION.
11
s q r y , th e a c t w a s n o t e x c lu s iv e as a g a in s t in ju r e d w o r k m e n , w h o
w e r e p e r m it t e d t o su e u n d e r th e e m p lo y e r s ’ lia b ilit y la w , t h o u g h
b r in g in g s u it fo r f e i t e d th e b e n e fits u n d e r th is a ct. T h is d o u b le
o b lig a t io n im p o s e d u p o n th e e m p lo y e r b y th e a c t w a s h e ld b y th e
s u p r e m e c o u r t o f th e S ta te t o in v a lid a t e it, t h o u g h in its e ss e n tia l
fe a tu r e s it w a s h e ld t o b e a v a lid e x e r c is e o f th e la w -m a k in g p o w e r .
T h e n e x t la w o f t h is cla ss w a s e n a c te d b y M a r y la n d in 1910 es
t a b lis h in g c o o p e r a t iv e in s u r a n c e fu n d s f o r c o a l a n d c la y m in e rs o f
A lle g a n y a n d G a r r e t t c o u n tie s . T h is a c t w a s r e p e a le d b y th e c o m
p e n s a tio n a ct o f 1914.
I t w ill b e o b s e r v e d th a t th e f o r e g o i n g le g is la t io n , a n te d a tin g w h a t
m a y b e c a lle d th e c o m m is s io n p e r io d , w a s o f lim it e d a p p lic a t io n ,
e ith e r as t o th e lo c a lit y o r as t o th e cla sses o f e m p lo y e e s a ffe cte d .
A l s o th a t th e re a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n b u t lit t le r e g a r d as t o w h e th e r
th e b e n e fits p r o v id e d w e re at a ll a d e q u a te t o th e n e e d s o f th e w o r k
m en . T h e la w s s u b s e q u e n tly e n a c te d m a y b e s a id t o b e o f g e n e r a l
a p p lic a t io n a n d h a v e g e n e r a lly b e e n b a s e d o n th e in v e s t ig a t io n s o f
c o m m is s io n s .
T h e first o f th e la w s o f th is cla ss w a s th e e le c tiv e c o m p e n s a tio n la w
o f N e w Y o r k , 1910, fo llo w e d in th e sa m e se ssio n b y a c o m p u ls o r y
la w f o r h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n ts . T h e la tte r la w w a s d e c la r e d u n
c o n s t it u t io n a l a ft e r a v e r y b r ie f te r m o f e x is te n c e , b u t a ft e r an a m e n d
m e n t to th e c o n s titu tio n a n ew c o m p u ls o r y la w w a s e n a c te d in 1913.
T h e r e a l c o m p e n s a tio n p e r io d b e g a n in 1911 w h e n 10 S ta te s e n a c te d
su ch la w s. E a c h y e a r s in ce th e n a d d it io n a l S ta te s h a v e fa lle n in lin e
u n t il a t p re s e n t, as a lr e a d y n o te d , 4 0 S ta te s a n d T e r r it o r ie s h a v e
e n a c te d c o m p e n s a tio n le g is la tio n .
T h is r a p id g r o w t h o f c o m p e n s a tio n le g is la t io n , in v o lv in g , as it h a s,
th e a lm o s t s im u lta n e o u s e n a c tm e n t o f la w s in a n u m b e r o f S ta te s,
h a s o p e r a t e d t o p r e v e n t th e a d o p t io n o f a n y o n e f o r m o f la w as a
t y p e , so th a t a lt h o u g h a s in g le fu n d a m e n t a l p r in c ip le u n d e r lie s th e
e n tire g r o u p o f la w s o f th is cla ss, its e x p r e s s io n a n d a p p lic a t io n p r e
sen t g r e a t d iv e r s it y o f d e ta ils in th e d iffe r e n t S ta te s. T h is is tru e
n o t o n ly o f th e p r im a r y fa c t o r s o f th e la w s , su ch as th e s c o p e a n d
th e c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fits, b u t a lso o f th e sy ste m o f c o m p e n s a tio n
in s u r a n c e , a d m in is tr a tio n , m e th o d s o f e le c tio n o r r e je c t io n , etc.
A c o m p a r is o n o f th ese a n d o th e r fe a tu r e s w h ic h m a y b e c la ss e d
as o f p r in c ip a l r a n k is e ss e n tia l to a n y f a ir u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e
r e la tiv e e ffe ctiv e n e s s o f th e la w s — a fa c t w h ic h is r e c o g n iz e d b y in
su ra n c e c o m p a n ie s in fix in g th e r a te s o f p r e m iu m t o b e c h a r g e d
in w r it in g p o lic ie s t o c o v e r th e lia b ilit ie s p r e s c r ib e d b y th e la w s ,
a n d is o f n o less in te re s t t o th e e m p lo y e r w h o is p r im a r ily c h a r g e d
wifch th ese lia b ilit ie s , a n d t o th e w o r k m a n f o r w h o s e b e n e fit th e la w s
w e r e e n a cte d .
T h e c o m p e n s a tio n S ta te s c o n ta in a p p r o x im a t e ly 77 p e r c e n t o f
th e p e r s o n s g a in f u ll y e m p lo y e d in th e U n it e d S ta te s a n d in c lu d e
12
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PENSATION LAW S.
p r a c t ic a lly a ll o f th e in d u s t r ia l S ta tes. T h e r e seem s t o h a v e b ee n
n o ca u sa l c o n n e c t io n b e tw e e n th e n e e d f o r c o m p e n s a t io n la w s a n d
th e seq u e n ce o f th e ir e n a ctm e n t. O f th e 10 S ta te s e n a c tin g su ch
la w s in 1911, 3 w e r e m a n u fa c t u r in g S ta te s o n th e A t la n t ic co a st, 4
w e re a g r ic u ltu r a l o r s e m i-in d u s tr ia l S ta te s in th e M is s is s ip p i V a lle y ,
a n d 3 w e re p r im a r ily a g r ic u ltu r a l o r m in in g S ta te s w est o f th e
R o c k y M o u n ta in s . T h e 12 n o n c o m p e n s a tio n S t a t e s 1 r e m a in in g in
c lu d e 10 S o u th e r n S ta te s, N o r t h D a k o t a , a n d th e D is t r ic t o f C o lu m
b ia . P r a c t ic a lly a ll o f th ese are p r im a r ily a g r ic u ltu r a l S ta te s,
t h o u g h in m o s t o f th e m m a n u fa c t u r in g is o f c o n s id e r a b le a n d in c r e a s
in g im p o r ta n c e .
SYSTEMS PROVIDED FOR.
C o m p e n s a tio n la w s m a y b e cla ss ifie d as c o m p u ls o r y , e le c tiv e ( o p
t i o n a l) , o r v o lu n t a r y , d e p e n d in g u p o n th e d e g r e e o f c o n s tr a in t t o
w h ic h e m p lo y e r s a re s u b je c te d t o a c c e p t th e c o m p e n s a tio n p r o v is io n s .
S in c e th ese te r m s w ill b e u sed r e p e a te d ly it m a y b e a d v is a b le to
d efin e th e m in d e ta il. A c o m p u ls o r y la w is o n e w h ic h r e q u ir e s e v e r y
e m p lo y e r w it h in th e s c o p e o f th e c o m p e n s a tio n la w to a c c e p t th e a ct
a n d p a y th e c o m p e n s a tio n s s p e c ifie d . T h e r e is n o c h o ic e . U s u a lly ,
b u t n o t a lw a y s , th e e m p lo y e e m u st a lso a c c e p t th e p r o v is io n s o f th e
a ct. I n A r iz o n a , f o r e x a m p le , th e la w is c o m p u ls o r y as a p p lie d t o
th e e m p lo y e r , b u t th e e m p lo y e e , a ft e r an in ju r y , h a s th e o p t io n o f
a c c e p t in g c o m p e n s a tio n o r s u in g f o r d a m a g e s.
A n e le c tiv e a ct is o n e in w h ic h th e e m p lo y e r h a s th e o p t io n o f
e ith e r a c c e p t in g o r r e je c t in g th e a ct, b u t, in ca se h e r e je c ts , th e c u s
t o m a r y c o m m o n -la w d e fe n s e s a re u s u a lly a b r o g a te d . I n o t h e r w o r d s ,
th e e m p lo y e r is p e n a liz e d i f h e d o e s n o t e lect. T h e e m p lo y e e a lso
h a s th e r ig h t t o a c c e p t o r r e je c t th e act.
N o n e o f th e c o m p e n s a tio n la w s c o v e r s a ll e m p lo y m e n ts . U s u a lly
a g r ic u ltu r e , d o m e s tic s e r v ic e , e m p lo y m e n ts c a su a l in n a tu r e o r n o t
c o n d u c t e d f o r th e p u r p o s e o f th e e m p lo y e r ’s b u sin e ss, a n d in som e
la w s n o n h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n ts , a re e x e m p te d fr o m th e p r o v is io n s
o f th e a ct. I n so m e S ta te s su ch e m p lo y m e n ts , h o w e v e r , m a y c o m e
u n d e r th e p r o v is io n s o f th e la w th r o u g h th e v o lu n t a r y a c c e p ta n c e
o f th e e m p lo y e r o r th e jo i n t e le c tio n o f e m p lo y e r a n d e m p lo y e e in
th ese e x e m p te d cla sses, b u t th e e m p lo y e r lo se s n o r ig h t s o r d e fe n s e s i f
h e d o e s n o t a c ce p t. S u c h a c tio n o n th e p a r t o f th e e m p lo y e r is c a lle d
v o lu n t a r y a n d t o th is e x te n t th e c o m p e n s a tio n la w is a v o lu n t a r y o n e.
T h u s a la w m a y b e e ith e r c o m p u ls o r y o r e le c t iv e as t o th e e m p lo y
m e n ts c o v e r e d , a n d v o lu n t a r y as t o e m p lo y m e n t s e x e m p te d .
F u r t h e r m o r e , th e e m p lo y m e n ts r e fe r r e d t o a b o v e a re p r iv a t e e m
p lo y m e n ts . A n a ct m a y b e e le c tiv e as t o p r iv a t e b u t c o m p u ls o r y as
t o p u b lic e m p lo y m e n ts . I n fa c t , o n e -h a lf o f th e e le c tiv e c o m p e n s a 1 Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
13
SYSTEM S PROVIDED FOR.
t io n la w s a re c o m p u ls o r y as t o p u b lic e m p lo y e e s . C la s s ific a tio n ,
h o w e v e r , is b a se d e x c lu s iv e ly u p o n p r iv a t e e m p lo y m e n ts .
D is t in c t io n m u s t a ls o b e m a d e b e tw e e n th e e ffe c t iv e a n d t h e o r e t ic a l
s c o p e o f a n a ct. A c o m p u ls o r y c o m p e n s a t io n la w m a y b e lim it e d in
it s s c o p e , b u t a t le a st a ll e m p lo y e e s w it h in th is s c o p e a re c o v e r e d ,
w h ile an e le c tiv e a c t m a y in c lu d e a ll e m p lo y m e n ts a n d y e t f a il to
c o v e r a la r g e p r o p o r t io n o f e m p lo y e e s b e c a u s e o f th e e m p lo y e r s ’ r e
fu s a l t o a c c e p t th e p r o v is io n s o f th e la w .
H e r e a ft e r , u n less o th e r w is e sp e c ifie d , th e t h e o r e t ic a l s c o p e o f an
a ct is m e a n t, a n d w h e n su ch e x p r e s s io n s as 50 p e r c e n t o f e m p lo y e e s
a re “ c o v e r e d ” b y th e a ct, o r “ a ffe cte d ” b y th e a ct, o r “ c o m e u n d e r ”
th e a c t, o r a re “ s u b je c t t o ” th e a ct, it is p re s u m e d th a t a ll e m p lo y e r s
in th e S ta te r e fe r r e d t o h a v e a c c e p te d th e c o m p e n s a t io n p r o v is io n s
o f th e la w . I t is h o p e d th a t b y th u s d e fin in g th e te r m s, a m b ig u it y
a n d c o n fu s io n w ill b e a v o id e d , o r at lea st m in im iz e d . T h e e x te n t t o
w h ic h e m p lo y e r s in e le c tiv e S ta te s h a v e a c t u a lly a c c e p te d th e la w
w ill b e d iscu sse d in a n o th e r c o n n e c tio n .
C o m p e n s a tio n la w s m a y b e c la ss ifie d u p o n d iffe r e n t b a ses. A s
a lr e a d y n o te d , o n e m e th o d o f c la s s ific a tio n is th e d iv is io n in t o c o m
p u ls o r y a n d e le c tiv e c o m p e n s a t io n la w s , d e p e n d in g u p o n w h e th e r th e
c o m p e n s a t io n p r o v is io n s a re o b lig a t o r y o r o p t io n a l. T h e r e q u ir e
m e n ts as t o in s u r a n c e c o n s titu te a n o th e r b a sis f o r c la s s ific a tio n . O n
th is b a sis th e la w s m a y b e cla ss ifie d as c o m p u ls o r y , in c lu d in g a ll
la w s in w h ic h so m e fo r m o f in s u r a n c e is r e q u ir e d , o r o p t io n a l,
in c lu d in g la w s in w h ic h n o in s u r a n c e is r e q u ir e d . T h e f o l l o w i n g
ta b le s h o w s th e c o m p e n s a tio n S ta te s g r o u p e d a c c o r d in g t o th ese t w o
c la s s ific a t io n s :
Compensation compulsory, 12.
Insurance required, 11.
California.
Hawaii.
Idaho.
Illinois.
Maryland.
New York.
Ohio
Oklahoma.
Utah.
Washington.^
Wyoming.1
Insurance not
required, 1.
Arizona.
•
Compensation elective, 28.
Insurance required, 24.
Colorado.
Connecticut.
Delaware.
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kentucky.
Maine.
Massachusetts.
Michigan.
Montana.
Nebraska.
Nevada, i
New Hampshire.
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
Oregon, i
Pennsylvania.
Porto Rico.*
Rhode Island.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Vermont.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin.
1 Monopolistic State insurance.
Insurance not
required, 4.
Alaska.
Kansas.
Louisiana.
Minnesota.
14
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N *S COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
I t w ill b e n o t e d t h a t o f th e 4 0 c o m p e n s a tio n la w s , 12 a r e c o m p u l
s o r y a n d 28 e le c tiv e as t o th e c o m p e n s a t io n p r o v is io n s , a n d 35 a re
c o m p u ls o r y a n d 5 e le c tiv e as t o th e in s u r a n c e re q u ir e m e n ts . O f
th e 28 e le c tiv e c o m p e n s a t io n la w s , 2 4 p r o v id e f o r c o m p u ls o r y in s u r
a n ce in s o m e fo r m , w h ile w it h th e r e m a in in g 4 th e q u e s tio n o f in
su ra n c e is l e f t o p t io n a l. O f th e 12 c o m p u ls o r y c o m p e n s a tio n la w s ,
11 r e q u ir e in s u r a n c e a n d 1 d o e s n o t.
V e r y c o n s id e r a b le d iffe r e n c e s a p p e a r in th e m e th o d s p r o v id e d b y
th e la w s o f th e 35 S ta te s in w h ic h in s u r a n c e is o b lig a t o r y . T h u s
th e S ta te m a y m a k e p r o v is io n f o r th e c a r r y in g o f s u ch in s u r a n c e ,
a n d r e q u ir e a ll e m p lo y e r s c o m in g u n d e r th e a ct t o a v a il th e m se lv e s
o f su ch p r o v is io n ; o r th e S ta te fu n d m a y s im p ly o ffe r o n e o f a lt e r
n a tiv e m e th o d s . A g a in , th e S ta te m a y r e fr a in e n t ir e ly fr o m su ch
a c tio n , b u t r e q u ir e in s u r a n c e in p r iv a t e c o m p a n ie s , s to c k o r m u t u a l;
a n d la s t ly , s e lf-in s u r a n c e m a y b e p e r m it t e d , i. e., th e c a r r y in g o f th e
r is k b y th e in d iv id u a l, s u b je c t t o s u ch s a fe g u a r d s as th e la w m a y
p r e s c r ib e .
T h e f o l l o w i n g t a b le s h o w s th e g r o u p in g s o n th e b a se s in d ic a t e d :
COMPULSORY INSURANCE STATES, CLASSIFIED AS TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF INSUR
ANCE ALLOWED.
State monopoly(5). State fund (11).
Nevada..............
Oregon........*___
Porto Rico........
Washington.......
Wvoming..........
Private insurance (27).
Self-insurance (28).
California.......... California................... California.
Colorado........... Colorado..................... Colorado.
Connecticut................ Connecticut.
Delaware.................... Delaware.
Hawaii....................... Hawaii.
Idaho.
Idaho................
Illinois........................ Illinois.
Indiana...................... Indiana.
Iowa........................... Iowa.
Kentuckv................... Kentucky.
Maine , .................. Maine.
Maryland.......... Maryland................... Maryland.
Massachusetts............
Michigan........... Michigan.................... Michigan.
Montana........... Montana.................... Montana.
Nebraska.................... Nebraska.
New Hampshire 1 __
New Jersey................
New Mexico...............
New York......... New York..................
Ohio 2................
Oklahoma..................
New Hampshire, i
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
New York.
Ohio.2
Oklahoma.
Pennsylvania... Pennsylvania............. Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island ...........
South Dakota.............
Texas.........................
Utah................. Utah...........................
Vermont.....................
West Virginia3
Wisconsin..................
Rhode Island.
South Dakota.
Utah.
Vermont.
West Virginia.8
Wisconsin.
1The New Hampshire law requires employers accepting the act to furnish proof of solvency or give
bond but makes no other provisions for insurance.
2Ohio permits self-insurance, but all employers are required to contribute their proportionate share to
the State insurance fund surplus.
3West Virginia has practically a monopolistic State insurance system. Self-insurance is allowed but
employers desiring to carry their own risk must bear the whole burden of the act and in addition con
tribute their proportionate share of the administrative expenses of the law, while employers insuring in
the State fund may charge 10 per cent of the premiums against their employees.
SYSTEM S PROVIDED FOR.
15
B r o a d ly s p e a k in g , th e la w s m a y b e d iv id e d in t o f o u r m a in g r o u p s
o r c o m b in a tio n o f g r o u p s , n a m e l y : ( 1 ) S ta te m o n o p o ly , ( 2 ) c o m p e t i
tiv e S ta te fu n d , ( 3 ) p r iv a t e in s u r a n c e , e ith e r s to c k o r m u tu a l, a n d
( 4 ) s e lf-in s u r a n c e o r w h e r e e m p lo y e r s a re p e r m it t e d t o c a r r y t h e ir
o w n r isk . I n m o s t ca ses th e e m p lo y e r s h a v e th e o p t io n o f se v e r a l
k in d s o f in su r a n c e . T h is d o e s n o t h o ld tru e , h o w e v e r , o f th e S ta te s
h a v in g m o n o p o lis t ic sy stem s. I n th e se ca ses n o o th e r f o r m o f in
s u ra n ce is p e r m itte d .
I t w ill b e n o te d t h a t fiv e S ta te s h a v e su ch m o n o p o lis t ic sy stem s.
I n th re e o f th ese, N e v a d a , O r e g o n , an<J P o r t o R ic o , c o m p e n s a tio n is
e le c tiv e a n d in s u r a n c e is t h e r e fo r e n o t a b s o lu te ly c o m p u ls o r y , s in c e
e m p lo y e r s n e e d n o t a c c e p t th e a ct, b u t s h o u ld t h e y a c c e p t, in s u r a n c e
in th e S ta te fu n d is c o m p u ls o r y . I n W a s h in g t o n a n d W y o m in g b o th
c o m p e n s a tio n a n d in s u r a n c e a re c o m p u ls o r y . I n th e se fiv e S ta te s th e
S ta te b e c o m e s th e s o le in s u r a n c e c a r r ie r . I t cla ss ifie s th e in d u s tr ie s
in t o g r o u p s a c c o r d in g t o h a z a r d , fix e s a n d c o lle c ts p r e m iu m s , a d ju d i
c a tes c la im s , a n d p a y s c o m p e n s a tio n . B e c a u s e th e in s u r a n c e fe a tu r e
p la y s su ch an im p o r t a n t p a r t , a n d b e c a u se S ta te in s u r a n c e is a r a d i
c a l d e p a r tu r e fr o m p a s t p u b lic p o lic y , th e se la w s a re s o m e tim e s c a lle d
S ta te in s u r a n c e la w s.
I n th e o th e r 30 S ta te s h a v in g c o m p u ls o r y in s u r a n c e la w s s o m e
fo r m o f c o m p e t itio n e x is ts , o r a t le a st th e e m p lo y e r is g iv e n an
o p t io n as t o th e m e th o d o f in s u r in g h is r isk . I n ‘ e le v e n o f th ese
S t a t e s 1 th e la w s p r o v id e f o r a S ta te fu n d t h r o u g h w h ic h th e S ta te
c o n d u c ts a w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n in s u r a n c e b u sin e ss in com p *etition
w it h p r iv a t e lia b ilit y c o m p a n ie s . H o w e v e r , th e la w s o f th re e o f th e se
S ta te s, I d a h o , O h io , a n d W e s t V ir g in ia , d iffe r q u ite m a t e r ia lly fr o m
th o s e o f th e o th e r e ig h t. I d a h o d o e s n o t p e r m it p r iv a t e c a s u a lty c o m
p a n ie s t o w r it e w o r k m e n ’s c o m p e n s a tio n in s u r a n c e , b u t a llo w s e m
p lo y e r s t o c a r r y th e ir o w n r is k a n d a lso p e r m it s s u b stitu te in s u r a n c e
sch e m e s i f th e b e n e fits p r o v id e d e q u a l th o s e o f th e a ct. O h io a ls o
d o e s n o t p e r m it p r iv a t e s to c k c o m p a n ie s t o w r it e w o r k m e n ’s c o m
p e n s a tio n in s u r a n c e , b u t p e r m it s e m p lo y e r s t o c a r r y th e ir o w n r is k ,
t h o u g h a ll su ch e m p lo y e r s a re r e q u ir e d t o c o n t r ib u t e th e ir p r o p o r
tio n a te sh a re t o th e S ta te in s u r a n c e fu n d s u rp lu s. S e lf-in s u r e r s ,
h o w e v e r , a re n o t p e r m it t e d t o in s u r e t h e ir r is k in p r iv a t e c o m p a n ie s .
W e s t V ir g in ia h a s p r a c t ic a lly a m o n o p o lis t ic S ta te in s u r a n c e sy ste m .
S h e p e r m its n o p r iv a t e in s u r a n c e , b u t d o e s a llo w s e lf-in s u r a n c e . T h e
e m p lo y e r s , h o w e v e r , w h o d e s ire t o c a r r y t h e ir o w n r is k m u s t b e a r th e
w h o le b u r d e n o f th e a c t a n d in a d d it io n c o n t r ib u t e t h e ir p r o p o r
1 California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl
vania, Utah, and West Virginia.
16
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N *S CO M PENSATION LAW S.
t io n a t e sh a re t o th e a d m in is t r a t iv e e x p e n s e s o f th e la w , w h ile th o s e
in s u r in g in th e S ta te fu n d m a y c h a r g e 10 p e r ce n t o f th e p r e m iu m s
a g a in s t t h e ir e m p lo y e e s . T h e o th e r e ig h t S ta te s a llo w b o t h p r iv a t e
a n d s e lf in s u r a n c e in a d d it io n t o th e S ta te fu n d .
T h r e e S t a t e s 1 h a v e s o -c a lle d S ta te m u tu a l in s u r a n c e c o m p a n ie s .
M a ssa c h u se tts w a s th e first S ta te t o p r o v id e f o r th is t y p e o f in s u r
a n ce. T h e o r ig in a l p u r p o s e w a s t o c re a te a n in s u r a n c e m o n o p o ly c o n
d u c te d b y a n e m p lo y e r s ’ m u tu a l c o m p a n y a n d s u p e r v is e d b y th e
S ta te . B e f o r e th e la w w a s fin a lly e n a c te d , h o w e v e r , p r iv a t e c o m
p a n ie s w e r e g iv e n p r a c t ic a lly th e sa m e p r iv ile g e s as th e s o -c a lle d S ta te
c o m p a n y , w h ic h a t p r e s e n t is a r e g u la r c o m p e t in g p r iv a t e c o m p a n y .
T h e o th e r t w o S ta te s m e r e ly c o p ie d th e p r o v is io n s o f th e M a s s a c h u
setts la w . M a ssa c h u se tts a n d T e x a s d o n o t p e r m it s e lf-in s u r a n c e ,
w h ile K e n t u c k y d oes. T h e t w o fo r m e r S ta te s a re e x c e p t io n a l in th a t
e le c tio n o f th e a c t is m a d e b y in s u r in g .
O f th e 35 c o m p u ls o r y -in s u r a n c e S ta te s, 2 7 p e r m it p r iv a t e c o m
p a n ie s t o o p e r a te , th e o n ly e x c e p t io n s b e in g th e 5 m o n o p o lis t ic S ta te s
o f N e v a d a , O r e g o n , P o r t o R i c o , W a s h in g t o n , a n d W y o m in g , a n d th e
S ta te s o f W e s t V ir g in ia , O h io , a n d I d a h o .
T w e n t y -e ig h t S ta te s a llo w e m p lo y e r s t o s e lf-in s u r e o r c a r r y t h e ir
o w n r is k , th e e x c e p t io n s a g a in b e in g th e m o n o p o lis t ic S ta te s a n d
M a ssa c h u se tts a n d T e x a s . E m p lo y e r s w h o a v a il th e m s e lv e s o f th is
p r iv ile g e a re r e q u ir e d e ith e r t o g iv e p r o o f o f th e ir fin a n c ia l s o lv e n c y
a n d a b ilit y t o p a y c o m p e n s a t io n o r t o fu r n is h b o n d s o r o t h e r s e c u r ity ,
o r t o d o b o th . I n s e v e r a l S ta te s su ch e m p lo y e r s a re a ls o p e r m it t e d
t o secu re t h e ir c o m p e n s a t io n p a y m e n ts b y g u a r a n t y in su r a n c e .
N e w H a m p s h ir e ’s c o m p e n s a tio n la w is e x c e p t io n a l in t h a t e m
p lo y e r s w h o a c c e p t th e a c t m u st fu r n is h p r o o f o f fin a n c ia l s o lv e n c y
o r d e p o s it a d e q u a te s e c u r ity , b u t th e la w m a k e s n o o th e r p r o v is io n as
t o in s u r a n c e .
SCOPE OF THE LAWS.
N o t w o c o m p e n s a t io n la w s a re a lik e . A n u m b e r o f p r o v is io n s h a v e
b een a d o p te d q u ite u n ifo r m ly b y n e a r ly a ll th e S ta te s, a n d th o s e o f
c e r ta in S ta te s h a v e b ee n ta k e n as m o d e ls b y o th e rs. F o r e x a m p le :
M ic h ig a n a n d T e x a s h a v e fo llo w e d M a s s a c h u s e tts in im p o r t a n t p a r
t ic u la r s ; O r e g o n a n d N e v a d a h a v e c o p ie d a ft e r W a s h in g t o n , a n d
M a r y la n d h a s a d o p te d N e w Y o r k ’s la w q u ite g e n e r a lly . B u t ta k e n
as a w h o le th e la w s a re d is t in g u is h e d m o r e f o r t h e ir d is s im ila r itie s
th a n f o r t h e ir lik e n e sses.
1 Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Texas.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
17
I n a t t e m p t in g t o c o m p a r e a n d w e ig h th e v a r io u s a cts i t is n e ce s
s a r y t o c o n c e n tr a te u p o n th e m o r e im p o r t a n t fe a tu r e s . T h e s c o p e
o f a n a c t is p e r h a p s o f fo r e m o s t im p o r t a n c e . I n o th e r w o r d s , w h a t
in d u s tr ie s a re c o v e r e d , w h a t p e rs o n s a re c o m p e n s a te d , a n d w h a t e x
e m p tio n s a re m a d e ? T h e s e a re v it a l q u e stio n s. I t is o f n o p a r t ic u
la r im p o r t a n c e t o an in ju r e d w o r k m a n to k n o w th a t h is S ta te h a s an
e fficie n t a d m in is tr a tiv e sy ste m , o r th a t th e c o m p e n s a t io n sc a le is h ig h ,
o r th a t p a y m e n ts a re w e ll se c u re d b y a d e q u a te s u p e r v is io n o v e r i n
s u ra n c e c a r r ie r s , i f h is o c c u p a t io n is e x c lu d e d fr o m th e b e n e fits o f
th e a ct.
T h e a m o u n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n r e c e iv e d is p r o b a b ly th e n e x t m o s t im
p o r t a n t fe a tu r e o f a c o m p e n s a tio n la w . T h is in c lu d e s th e c o m p e n s a
t io n sca le , th e le n g t h o f tim e f o r w h ic h c o m p e n s a tio n is p a id , th e
m a x im u m a n d m in im u m lim its , th e a m o u n t o f m e d ic a l s e r v ic e p r o
v id e d , a n d th e le n g th o f th e w a it in g p e r io d .
A t h ir d im p o r t a n t fe a tu r e is th e p r o v is io n f o r an a d m in is t r a t iv e
sy ste m . I t is e ss e n tia l th a t th e r ig h t s o f in ju r e d w o r k m e n b e lo o k e d
a ft e r b y so m e r e s p o n s ib le a g e n c y in o r d e r th a t e m p lo y e e s m a y r e c e iv e
p r o m p t a n d ju s t s e ttle m e n ts a n d to p r e v e n t in t im id a t io n o n th e p a r t
o f e m p lo y e r s . I t is d e s ir a b le th a t in ju r e d e m p lo y e e s s h o u ld r e c e iv e
th e f u ll a m o u n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n d u e th e m a n d r e c e iv e it im m e d ia t e ly
a n d r e g u la r ly . O t h e r im p o r t a n t p r o v is io n s a re th o s e r e la t in g t o
s e c u r it y o f c o m p e n s a tio n p a y m e n ts a n d in ju r ie s c o v e r e d .
N o S ta te c o m p e n s a tio n a ct, ev e n w h e n fu ll use o f th e e le c tiv e p r o
v is io n s is ta k e n in t o a c c o u n t, c o v e r s a ll e m p lo y e e s . T h e n ea rest a p
p r o a c h t o u n iv e r s a l c o v e r a g e is th e N e w J e r s e y a ct, w h ic h e x e m p ts
o n ly ca su a l la b o r e rs , p u b lic officia ls, a n d p u b lic e m p lo y e e s r e c e iv in g
sa la rie s in e x ce ss o f $1,200. T h e p r in c ip a l e x e m p tio n s , in th e o r d e r
o f th e ir im p o r t a n c e , p e r h a p s a r e : ( 1 ) N o n h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n t s ;
( 2 ) a g r ic u lt u r e ; ( 3 ) d o m e s tic s e r v ic e ; ( 4 ) n u m e r ic a l e x c e p tio n s ,
i. e., e m p lo y e r s h a v in g less th a n a s p e c ifie d n u m b e r o f e m p lo y e e s ;
(5 ) p u b lic e m p lo y e e s ; ( 6 ) c a su a l la b o r e r s o r th o se n o t e m p lo y e d f o r
th e p u r p o s e o f th e e m p lo y e r ’s b u s in e s s ; a n d ( 7 ) e m p lo y m e n ts n o t
c o n d u c t e d f o r g a in . I n a d d it io n , th e re a re a n u m b e r o f m in o r e x
e m p tio n s a ffe c t in g in d iv id u a l S ta te s.
A s a lr e a d y n o te d , m o s t o f th e S ta te s w h ic h e x e m p t c e r ta in e m
p lo y m e n t s p r o v id e th a t th e p a r tie s e x e m p te d m a y a c c e p t th e p r o
v is io n s o f th e c o m p e n s a t io n sy ste m t h r o u g h v o lu n t a r y a g re e m e n ts o r
jo in t e le c tio n , b u t th e o r d in a r y d e fe n s e s o f th e e m p lo y e r a re n o t
a b r o g a te d i f t h e y d o n o t e le ct. A s a m a tte r o f f a c t , in m o s t S ta te s
28941°—18------2
18
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATIO N LAW S.
th is p r iv ile g e h a s n o t b e e n ta k e n a d v a n t a g e o f t o a n y g r e a t e x t e n t 1
e x c e p t in ca se o f p u b lic e m p lo y e e s ,2 a n d its e ffe c t in in c r e a s in g th e
s c o p e o f a n a c t is n e g lig ib le .
T h e ta b le f o l l o w i n g s h o w s th e in c lu s io n s a n d e x c lu s io n s o f th e
v a r io u s S ta te s a r r a n g e d a c c o r d in g t o th e f o r e g o i n g c la s s ific a t io n s :
SCOPE OF COMPENSATION LAWS.
Exclusions.
Inclusions.
Both
Nu
hazard Haz
mer
ous and ardous
ical
em
nonhaz- ploy
ex
ardous ments emp
employ only. tions.
ments.
Cal.......
Colo......
Conn—
Del.......
Hawaii..
Alaska. Alaska*
Ariz...
Cal... Cal...
Colo, s Colo.. Colo..
Conn.8
Del.3 Del.... Del..
111..
Iowa.
Ky..
Me"
Kans. Kans.11
K y.3.
L a "!
Me.14. .
Md.!!
Mass..
Mich..
Minn..
Nebr..
Nev...
Employ Public
ments
em
not con ploy
ducted ments.
for gain.
Cal.4.........
Colo.®....... Colo..
Conn.®___
Del.4........
Hawaii«.. Hawaii.
111....
Ind... Ind..
I11A .
Ind.8.
Iowa.
Iowa.
Iowa ®...
Kans.
Ky...
Ky..
Me...
Md...
Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Mont.
Nebr.
Nev..
Kans.9. .
Other exemptions.
Alaska.
Ariz...
(7)
Del.*.'
Idaho. Idaho. Idaho8__ Idaho..
Idaho.
Ind..
Casual
labor and
Agri
Do
employ
cul mestic ment not
ture. service. for employ
er’s busi
ness.
Outworkers.
Do.
Private employees receiving
over $36 a week; public em
ployees over $1,800 a year.
Outworkers; charitable insti
tutions; employees receiv
ing over $2,400 a year.
Railroad employees in train
service.
Iowa w Clerks not subject to hazard
of industry.
Kans__ Kans.12
Ky.
Me...
Md...
La. 9..
Me.6
Md. s.
Md..
Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Mont.
Nebr.
Nev..
Mass.9..
Mich. «.
Minn.4. .
Mont.*..
Nebr.*..
Nebr..
Logging.
Md.1* . Country blacksmiths; employees receiving over
$2,000 a year.
Mass.16
Minn.17 Steam railroads.
Outworkers.
Only workmen engaged in
manual or mechanical la
bor included.
N. J.«.
Public employees receiving
N. J..
over $1,200 a year.
1 For example: In California, in 1916, only 10,397 out of a total of not 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 employees had elected to come under the a c t ; in
Maryland, in 1915, only 42 of all the employers in nonhazardous industries, and thus not
compelled to accept the act, had voluntarily done s o ; and in Nebraska, in 1915, only 87
employers of those exempt from all compulsion had voluntarily accepted the act.
2 In Massachusetts municipalities are not compelled to accept the compensation act, but
practically all have accepted voluntarily.
3 Less than 5 excluded.
4 Casual and not for purpose of employer’ s business.
6 Less than 4 excluded.
6 Casual or not for purpose of employer’s business.
* Members of National Guard excluded.
8 Casual only.
9 Not for purpose of employer’s business.
10 City teachers excluded by ruling of commissioner.
11 Less than 5 excluded. Mines excepted from this provision.
12 Except municipal and county workmen.
13 State and municipalities having less than 5 employees.
14 Less than 6 excluded.
15 Except workmen.
Except State workmen,
" State.
N.H.. N. H.»
N.H.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
19
SCOPE OF COMPENSATION L A W S —Concluded.
Inclusions.
Both
Nu
hazard Haz
mer
ous and ardous
ical
em
nonhaz- ploy
ex
ardous ments emp
employ only. tions.
ments.
Ohio.......
Pa..........
P .R .......
R .I........
S. Dak
Tex........
Utah......
V t..........
W.Va__
Wis
Exclusions.
Agri
cul
ture.
Casual
labor and
employ
Do
mestic ment not
service. for employ
er's busi
ness.
Employ Public
ments
em
not con ploy
ducted ments.
for gain.
Other exemptions.
N.Mex.2... N.Mex.. N.Mex
N.Mex. N.Mex1
N. Y ..
N. Y .. N. Y ..
N. Y .... N.Y.a
Ohio 4.
‘ Ohio *.......
Okla.. Okla.5 Okia
Okla.... Okla.« Retail stores; persons not en
gaged in manual or me
chanical work.
Oreg
Oreg
P a .... P a .... Pa.2..........
Outworkers.
ocupations; employ
........... P.R .«. P .R .. P .R ..
.............. P .R .. Clerical
ees receiving over $1,200 a
year.
R. I.7 . R .I ... R .I ... R. I.2.......
Employees receiving over
$1,800 a year.
S.Dak. S.Dak. S. Dak.2
Tex.5 . Tex... Tex... Tex.«
Tex... Railways used as common
carriers.
Utah1. Utah.. Utah.. Utah2
Public employees receiving
over $2,400 a year.
V t .... Vt.*.......... V t........ V t .» .. Employees receiving over
Vt9
$2,000 a year.
Wash
Wash, s
W.Va. W.Va. W. Va.19.. W.Va... W.Va. “ Temporary'*employments;
traveling salesmen; cor
poration officers.
Wis.5 . Wis
Wis.8
W yo.. Wyo.11
Wyo.2
W y o.... Wyo.6 . Officials; clerks not subject
to hazard of industry.
1 Less than 4 excluded. Structural operations, 10 feet above ground, excepted from this
provision.
2 Casual or not for purpose of employer's business.
8 State.
4 Less than 5 excluded.
5 Less than 3 excluded.
6 Except workmen.
7 Less than 6 excluded.
8 Not for purpose of employer’s business.
9 Less than 11 excluded.
10 Casual only.
11 Less than 3 excluded. Public employments, employments where explosives are used,
and structural operations 10 feet above ground are excepted from this provision.
HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENTS.
I t w ill b e n o te d th a t 14 o f th e 4 0 S ta te s in c lu d e o n ly h a z a r d o u s
e m p lo y m e n ts . I n th e se S ta te s th e in d u s tr ie s c o v e r e d a re e n u m e r
a te d a n d cla s s ifie d in v a r y in g d e g r e e s o f d e ta il, r a n g in g fr o m 5
c la s s ific a tio n s in N e w H a m p s h ir e to 44 in N e w Y o r k . T h e s e lis ts
m a y , in so m e ca ses, b e fu r t h e r e x te n d e d a t th e d is c r e tio n o f th e a d
m in is tr a tiv e c o m m is s io n s , o r t h r o u g h d e c is io n s o f th e c o u r ts . T h e r e
is a lso c o n s id e r a b le d iv e r s it y in th e s c o p e a n d n u m b e r o f h a z a r d o u s
e m p lo y m e n ts in c lu d e d . I t is im p o s s ib le w it h in th e b o u n d s o f a c h a r t
o r s u m m a r y t o p re s e n t a ll th e d e ta ils o f in c lu s io n . I n A la s k a , o n ly
m in in g o p e r a t io n s a re in c lu d e d , b u t in th e o t h e r S ta te s th e p r i n
c ip a l h a z a r d o u s e m p lo y m e n ts a re c o v e r e d , in c lu d in g m a n u fa c t u r in g ,
m in in g , tr a n s p o r t a t io n , a n d c o n s t r u c t io n w o r k . I n e n u m e r a tin g th e
in d u s tr ie s c o v e r e d v a r io u s p h r a s e s a re u se d t o d e n o te th e u n u su a l
20
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATION LAW S.
degree of risk to which the employees are exposed. In four States1
the term “ hazardous” employment is used, in five2 “ extrahazardous,” and in one 3 “ inherently hazardous ” ; one State 4 employs the
word “ dangerous,” while tw o5 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 employ
ments are specifically excluded. In Maine, for example, logging
operations, conceded to be one of the most hazardous employments,
are exempted from* the compensation act, and in no State is agricul
ture, generally admitted to be a hazardous employment, included in
terms, while in seven6 States it is specifically excluded. Six States7
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 re
duced 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 injury 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.
N U M E R IC A L E X E M P T IO N S .
A second exclusion is the exemption of small employers from the
operation of the law. There are 18 States having such numerical
exemptions. Four States8 exempt employers of less than 3 em
ployees; three9 exempt employers of less than 4; eight,10 of less than
5; two,11 of less than 6; and one,12 of less than 11.
1 Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
2 Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.
3 Montana.
4 New Hampshire.
5 Arizona and Kansas.
6 Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
7 Alaska, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
8 Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
8 Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
10 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Porto
Rico.
11 Maine and Rhode Island.
12 Vermont.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
21
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 materially reduced in employments where only a few
workmen are employed. 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 im
portant 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 numerical-exemption provision.
A G R IC U L T U R E .
Every State except two1 exempts agriculture. The exclusion
is either direct or, what amounts to the same thing, the employer’s
defenses are not abrogated in case he does not elect. In 28 States
agriculture is excluded specifically in the law, while in 3 States2 its
exclusion is accomplished through the exemption of the small em
ployer. In the other 7 States3 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, proves quite conclusively that agriculture
is a highly hazardous employment. The opposition of the farming
element no doubt explains the exclusion, in 38 States, of agricultural
laborers from the benefits of compensation acts.
D O M E S T IC S E R V IC E .
Domestic service is exempted in all but one State.4 In 24 States
the exclusion is direct, while in 3 5 it is brought about by exempting
the small employers; in 1 State6 the exclusion is accomplished
by limiting the field of compensation to ‘‘industrial employments”
and exempting those not conducted for gain; in the other 11 States
only hazardous employments are covered.
P U B L IC E M P L O Y E E S .
The provisions in regard to public employees also lack uniformity.
Some States differentiate between the employees of the State and of
municipalities. Others include only those engaged in manual labor.
1 Hawaii and New Jersey.
2 Connecticut, Ohio, and Vermont.
3 Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.
4 New Jersey.
* Connecticut, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
* Hawaii.
22
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATION LAW S.
In some States again the inclusion is compulsory, in others it is
optional, while in still others, no provision at all is made.
Twenty-two States1 include both State and municipal employees,
while eight States2 include neither. In the other 10 States the inclu
sion of public employees is only partial. The status of each State is
shown in the table on pages 18 and 19. Of the 32 States which
include public employees, either in whole or in part, in all but 6 3 such
inclusions are compulsory. In these six elective States compensation
is also elective as to private employers.
CA SU A L LA BO R.
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 a casual labor ” is not readily defined nor is its meaning clear.
The various courts and commissions differ in their construction of
the term. One State4 has interpreted the phrase as meaning em
ployment for less than one week. Four States5 have recently elim
inated this 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, 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.,” as modifying “ course ” and not 44trade.” 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.
Thirty States make exceptions of this kind, while 10 do not. Eight
States6 exempt both casual laborers and those not employed in the
1 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsyl
vania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin.
2 Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Porto Rico, Texas, and West
Virginia.
3 Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont.
* California.
8 Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and Wisconsin.
6 Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Utah, and Vermont.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
23
usual course of the employer’s business; while in nine States1 the
employment must be both casual and not in the usual course of the
employer’s business, thus limiting the exclusions considerably. Six
States2 exempt only casual labor, while seven States3 exempt only
persons not in the usual course of the employer’s business. The
West Virginia act provides also for the exclusion of “ temporary
employments.”
E M P L O Y M E N T S N O T F O R G A IN .
As already noted, employments not conducted for gain refer pri
marily to businesses or institutions and not to employees as such.
Twelve States exempt such employments not conducted for gain or
profit. Charitable, educational, and religious institutions are in
cluded within this group. The court in New York held that even
public employments, irrespective of the fact that they were spe
cifically included in another provision of the act, were excluded from
the operation of the law, because such employments were not con
ducted for gain. The law was later amended4 so as definitely to
include public employments, regardless of the question of gain.
E X T R A T E R R IT O R IA L IT Y .
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. Some States
include such injuries, either specifically by law or through the
decisions of the commissions and court; some exclude them, while
others make no provision. In 15 States5 the laws have extraterri
torial effect; in 12 States® injuries occurring without the State are
not compensable; while in 13 States7 the law is not explicit.
M IS C E L L A N E O U S E X E M P T IO N S .
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. Eight States8 have exemptions
1 California, Delaware, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, and Wyoming.
2 Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and West Virginia.
8 Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Texas, and Wisconsin.
4 Ch. 622, Laws of 1916.
5 Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.
6 Alaska, California, Kansas, Kentucky (court decision), Maryland (exception as to
miners), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (court de
cision), Washington, and Wisconsin (commission ruling).
7 Ariona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Porto Rico, and Wyoming.
8 Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, New Jersey, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont.
24
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PEN SATION LAW S.
of this character. Other exemptions are: Outworkers in Connecticut,
Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania; logging in Maine;
all railways used as common carriers in Texas; country blacksmiths
in Maryland; retail stores in Oklahoma; charitable institutions in
Idaho; traveling salesmen in West Virginia; clerical occupations in
Iowa, Porto Rico, and Wyoming; steam railroads in Minnesota, and
railroad employees engaged in train service in Indiana.
IN T E R S T A T E C O M M E R C E .
The exemptions of employments and employees heretofore enumer
ated are all subject to State legislation and State jurisdiction. An
other employment which must necessarily be excluded is interstate
railroads. The power to legislate for them is vested in the Federal
Congress, and since it has acted the State laws can not enter the field.
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 excludes all steaifi 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 negli
gence, 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 con
flicting. 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,1 however, has declared that when an employer
engaged in interstate commerce was injured, his only right to recover
arose from the provision of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, re
gardless of the question of negligence. The power of the States to
supplement such legislation was denied. Theoretically, therefore, all
conflict of legar jurisdiction has been cleared up by these decisions
and a clear line of demarcation has been established; but in practice
1 New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, and Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield, May, 1917.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
25
)t is frequently, if not usually, necessary to try each case in order to
ascertain whether or not the tribunal undertaking to hear and deter
mine the controversy has jurisdiction over the parties to the pro
ceeding.
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 is incorporated in a bill introduced in the Sixtythird Congress and again in the Sixty-fourth Congress (H. R. 3651)
proposing a Federal statute providing compensation for injuries to
employees engaged in interstate commerce by railroad, the law to
be administered by referees who may also be referees or administra
tive 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 rele
gated 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 committee1 appointed by the International Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions in August, 1917, has
been at work attempting to formulate an adequate plan acceptable to
the brotherhoods, railroads, and the State compensation commissions.
It has also been suggested that, since the control of the railroads has
been taken over by the Federal Government, the President be author
ized to make provision for a Federal compensation system applicable
to all interstate railroads.
The foregoing proposals and discussions have to do solely with
railroad employees. State jurisdiction over employees engaged in
1 Composed of A. J. Pillsbury, chairman, Ca^romia Industrial Accident Commission,
John Mitchell, chairman, New York Industrial Commission, and Royal Meeker, United
States Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
26
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S CO M PENSATION LAW S.
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 case1 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 had 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 was “ 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. Th6 Supreme Court, however, did not decide the question
of admiralty jurisdiction over all injuries to sailors and stevedores
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 law2 giving States
concurrent jurisdiction over maritime cases.
N U M B E R O F P E R S O N S S U B JE C T T O C O M P E N S A T IO N A C T S .
Thus far only the theoretical or statutory scope of the compensa
tion 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 mean 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
remain practically the same except in the case of such States as have
1 Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, May, 1917,
* Public act No. 82, Oct. 6, 1917.
SCOPE OP TH E LAW S.
27
witnessed a marked change in the character of their industrial de
velopment. These computations, although based upon a detailed
study of the census figures, are in some cases merely estimates, and 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
number 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, and further
more the census gives occupations only and does not classify persons
employed according to industry or as to whether they are employees.
The table on page 28 shows the number of persons gainfully em
ployed;1 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 gain
fully employed; and the per cent the employees covered and not
covered are of the total employees. The phrase “ gainfully employed ”
is used in the same sense as used in the census, i. e., it includes all per
sons engaged in any gainful occupation irrespective of whether they
are employees, employers, or independent workers.
1 The figures in the table do not include Federal and interstate railroad employees on
the ground that such persons are not subject to State laws. The number of Mich em
ployees in each of the compensation States is given below. The sum of these figures
added to the total persons gainfully employed (column 1 of the table) would correspond
to the total persons gainfully employed as given in the census of occupations, 1910.
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut_____
____
Delaware
Hawaii
_____
Idaho
______
I llin o is ________
In d ia n a _______
Iowa ------------- Kansas _______
Kentucky______ _
Louisiana_____ -
1, 225
7, 109
48, 832
20, 138
10, 864
3, 807
3, 142
7, 598
105, 210
43, 644
40, 093
38, 601
24, 429
19, 872
Maine__________
Maryland_______
Massachusetts__
Michigan----------Minnesota--------Montana_______
Nebraska_______
Nevada-------------New HampshireNew Jersey_____
New Mexico___New York______
O hio___________
Oklahoma------ —
10, 909
17, 945
33, 414
32, 186
46, 919
19, 402
23, 220
3, 761
5, 950
38, 502
7, 625
105, 850
74, 952
16, 210
Oregon_________
Pennsylvania___
Porto Rico_____
Rhode Island___
South Dakota__
Texas__________
Utah___________
Vermont________
Washington_____
West Virginia___
Wisconsin______
Wyoming_______
18, 830
134,318
1, 567
6, 977
8, 099
52, 147
9, 511
5, 057
33, 212
22, 836
30, 252
12, 811
Total------ 1,147, 026
t
28
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N
COM PENSATION LAW S.
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PERSONS AFFECTED BY COMPEN
SATION ACTS.
[The 33timates of “ employees covered by act” and “ employees not covered by act” 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 employer to
elect unier ilactive acts.]
State.
Total
persons
gainfully
em
ployed.2
Alaska...............
Arizona.............
California...........
Colorado............
Connectic t .......
Delaware...........
Hawaii..........
Idaho................
Illinois...............
Indiana.............
Iowa..................
Kansas..............
Kentucky..........
Louisiana..........
Maine................
Maryland...........
Massachusetts...
Michigan...........
Minnesota.........
Montana............
Nebraska...........
Nevada..............
New Hampshire.
New Jersey........
New Mexico......
New York..........
Ohio..................
Oklahoma..........
Oregon..............
Pennsylvania—
Porto Rico........
Rhode Island....
South Dakota...
Texas................
Utah.................
Vermont...........
Washington......
West Virginia...
Wisconsin.........
Wyoming..........
38,848
80,716
1,058,836
318,586
479,598
82,056
98,052
123,490
2,191,568
993,066
786,220
582,732
842,551
659,311
294,548
523,219
1,497,654
1,080,812
788,533
159,345
- 417,894
41,149
185,753
1,035,858
113,872
3,897,994
1,844,103
582,419
286,334
2,996,363
392,581
244,924
210,978
1,504,719
122,029
139,032
488,289
425,654
862,160
60,795
Employers (in
cludes farmers,
independents,
etc.).
Per
cent
of total
Number. gain
fully
em‘ployed.
Per
Per
cent
cent
of total
of total
Number. gain Number. gain
fully
fully
em
em
ployed.
ployed.
7
23.4
16.6
42.6
19.8
28.3
58.1
30.5
19.3
15.4
14.9
56.0
57.5
33.5
33.7
23.9
37.6
37.7
29.5
30.1
13,707,693
48.0 6,236,136
43,551
171.895
48,510
772,297
522,448
338,365
87,464
577,178
60.536
36,405
118,097
864,699
40,844
46,811
116,746
160,064
325,263
17,953
Total........ 28,532,641 8,588,812
Not covered by
act.
27.0
23,067
40.2
29,519
57.8 192,091
43.0
80,215
71,452
67.2
46.1
22,075
6,424
82.3
40.6
22,784
39.8 702,784
50.6 130,093
33.9 158,716
18.6 184,654
27.3 190,272
21.3 258,053
55,708
51.0
36.0 217,376
74.1 153,237
55.3 121,648
48.1 100,449
35.7
54,636
34.9
61,301
7,735
60.1
42.9
62,522
83.2
2,000
45,289
17.6
46.9 1,297,484
54.7 312,842
14.5 159,532
33.8 101,960
71.7 269,318
15.6 270,838
71.0
35,604
25.6 . 38,884
20.4 333,243
21.839
48.6
36.6
41,279
39.2 180,085
47.7
62,451
47.0 131,888
24.839
13.6
23.2
24.1
31.8
17.9
27.5
11.5
41.0
28.1
36.3
45.9
49.7
50.1
39.6
30.1
22.4
15.7
33.4
39.2
30.0
50.4
Noncompensa
tion States and
Territories (12) * 8,700,000 2,618,700
United States ci
vilian employ‘553,991
Interstate rail
road employees * 1,300,000
Covered by act.1
10,481
32,455
611,941
137,157
322,211
37,447
80,319
50,119
871,890
502,729
266,936
108,388
230,135
140,239
150,305
188,433
1,109,134
597,585
379,349
56,826
146,034
24,746
79,680
861,963
20,073
1,828,213
1,008,813
84,522
96,910
2,149,867
61,207
173,915
53,997
306,777
59,346
50,942
191,458
203,139
405,009
18,003
5,300
18,742
254,804
101,214
85,985
22.534
11,309
50,587
616.894
360,244
360,568
289,690
422,144
261,019
88.535
117,410
235,283
361,579
308,735
47,883
210,559
8,668
Employees.
21.1
59.4
36.6
18.1
25.2
14.9
26.4
6.2
18.4
32.1
13.1
20.2
31.7
22.6
39.1
18.9
41.6
10.2
11.3
12.7
34.3
14.7
18.8
33.7
.2
39.8
33.3
17.0
27.4
35.7
9.0
69.0
14.1
18.4
Per
Per
cent
cent
em
em
ployees ployees
not
covered covered
are of are of
total
total
em
em
ployees. ployees.
8
31.2
52.4
76.2
63.1
81.9
62.9
92.6
68.7
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9
54.7
35.2
72.9
45.9
87.8
83.1
79.0
50.9
70.4
76.2
56.0
99.8
30.7
58.5
77.3
34.6
48.7
88.8
47.6
23.8
36.9
18.1
37.1
7.4
31.3
44.6
20.6
37.3
63.1
45.3
64.8
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
49.1
29.6
23.8
44.0
.2
69.3
41.5
22.7
65.4
51.3
11.2
17.9
29.7
36.9
14.7
15.3
40.9
18.4
83.0
58.0
47.9
73.1
55.2
51.5
74.7
75.4
42.0
81.6
17.0
42.0
52.1
26.9
44.8
48.5
25.3
24.6
58.0
21.9
68.7
31.3
22.1
6,081,300
‘553,991
100.0
100.0
51,300,000
100.0
1Includes all employees in employments covered by the compensation law irrespective of whether the
employers in elective States have accepted the act or not.
2 These figures, based upon the United States Census of 1910, do not include Federal employees and
interstate railroad employees, on the ground that they are not subject to State laws. The total persons
gainfully employed include employers as well as employees.
The ratio as determined from the compensation States has been applied to the noncompensation States.
The percentage of employers in the noncompensation States is probably greater than 30.1, due to the pre
ponderance of agriculture in these States.
* Figures as of July 1, 1917, taken from United States register. Probably 575,000 at present.
* Does not include shop employees and others usually subject to State compensation acts.
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
29
As already stated, the absolute figures are based on the Federal
Census of 1910, and therefore would not correspond with 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 8,500,000)
who can not possibly be covered under any existing compensation act.
From the number of persons gainfully employed (column 1) ha#ve
been subtracted the Federal and interstate railroad employees, on the
ground that they are not subject to State laws. The percentages em
ployers, 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 five States in which over
50 per cent of persons gainfully employed belong to the employing
class are agricultural States,1 while the four most intense industrial
States have a small employing class.2 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 laborers, 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 28,532,641 persons gainfully employed
in the 40 States and Territories having compensation laws, 8,588,812,
or 30.1 per cent, belong to the employing or independent class, while
13,707,693, or 48 per cent, represent employees covered by compen
sation acts, and 6,236,136, or 21.9 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 12 remaining non
compensation States8 have approximately 6,081,300 employees. The
total number of employees, therefore, in the 52 States and Territories
1 Oklahoma, 58 .1; Texas, 5 7 .5 ; South Dakota, 5 6 ; Nebraska, 5 0 .4 ; Kentucky, 50.1.
2 Rhode Island, 14.9 ; Massachusetts, 15.7 ; New Jersey, 1 6 .6 ; Connecticut, 17.9. The
small percentage o f employers in the two agricultural territories o f Hawaii (11.5) and
P orto Rico (15.4) is due to the large plantation system, employing many laborers.
* Including D istrict o f Columbia.
30
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATION LAW S.
deprived of the benefits of workmen’s compensation legislation is
over 12,000,000, or nearly one-half of the total number of employees
in the United States. In addition, there are about 1,300,000 inter
state railroad employees not subject to State acts and for which no
Federal compensation law has been enacted.
The following table shows the States arranged in the order of the
percentage of employees covered:
COMPENSATION STATES ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENTAGE OF
EMPLOYEES COVERED.
[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
Total
employees.
Total
gainfully
employed.
Per cent employees not
covered are of—
Total
employees.
Total
gainfully
employed
New Jersey........................................................
Hawaii...............................................................
99.8
92.6
83.2
82.3
0.2
7.4
0.2
6.2
Pennsylvania....................................................
Massachusetts....................................................
Cichigan............................................................
Rhode Island....................................................
Connecticut.......................................................
88.8
87.8
83.1
83.0
81.9
71.7
74.1
55.3
71.0
67.2
11.2
12.2
16.9
17.0
18.1
9.0
10.2
11.3
14.1
14.9
Indiana.............................................................
Minnesota..........................................................
Ohio..................................................................
Nevada.............................................................
California..........................................................
Wisconsin..........................................................
West Virginia....................................................
Utah..................................................................
Maine................................................................
Nebraska...........................................................
79.4
79.0
77.3
76.2
76.2
75.4
74.7
73.1
72.9
70.4
50.6
48.1
54.7
60.1
57.8
47.0
47.7
48.6
51.0
34.9
20.6
21.0
22.7
23.8
23.8
24.6
25.3
26.9
27.1
29.6
13.1
12.7
17.0
18.8
18.1
15.3
14.7
17.9
18.9
14.7
Idaho................................................................
Colorado............................................................
Delaware...........................................................
Iowa......................... ........................................
68.7
63.1
62.9
62.7
40.6
43.0
46.1
33.9
18.4
36.9
37.1
37.3
31.3
25.2
26.4
20.2
New York.........................................................
South Dakota....................................................
New Hampshire................................................
Illinois...............................................................
Vermont............................................................
Kentucky..........................................................
Arizona..............................................................
Washington.......................................................
Montana............................................................
58.5
58.0
56.0
55.4
55.2
54.7
52.4
51.5
50.9
46.9
25.6
42.9
39.8
36.6
27.3
40.2
39.2
35.7
41.5
42.0
44.0
44.6
44.8
45.3
47.6
48.5
49.1
33.3
18.4
33.7
32.1
29.7
22.6
36.6
36.9
34.3
Oregon...............................................................
Texas................................................................
Maryland..........................................................
Wyoming..........................................................
48.7
47.9
45.9
42.0
33.8
20.4
36.0
29.6
51.3
52.1
54.1
58.0
35.7
22.1
41.6
40.9
Kansas......... ....................................................
Louisiana..........................................................
Oklahoma..........................................................
Alaska...............................................................
New Mexico....................................................
Porto Rico.......................................................
36.9
35.2
34.6
31.2
30.7
18.4
18.6
21.3
14.5
27.0
17.6
15.6
63.1
64.8
65.4
68.6
69.3
81.6
31.7
39.1
27.4
59.4
39.8
69.0
Average....................................................
68.7
48.0
31.3
21.9
The second and fourth columns show what proportion the number
of employees covered and not covered is of the total gainfully em
ployed in the State. By bringing the two classes of percentages
SCOPE OF TH E LAW S.
81
into juxtaposition the effect of the industrial character of the State
in determining the percentage of gainfully employed persons sub
ject to an act is brought out; for example, New York (58.5 per cent)
and South Dakota (58 per cent) have nearly the same percentage
of employees covered, but in industrial New York these constitute
46.9 per cent of the total gainfully employed, whereas in agricultural
South Dakota they constitute 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 18.4 per cent, stands at the bot
tom. Seven States cover over 80 per cent, 17 over 70 per cent, 21
over 60 per cent, and 30 over 50 per cent. One covers less than 20
per cent, 6 cover less than 40 per cent, and 10 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 ex
cludes only agriculture and domestic service. The following table
shows the effect of the three main exclusions upon the number of
employees covered:
COMPENSATION STATES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO EMPLOYMENTS EXCLUDED
AND PER CENT OF EMPLOYEES COVERED 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.
State.
N. J
.............
Hawaii ® . . . .
Per cent
of em
ployees
covered.
99.8
92.6
Agriculture and
domestic service
excluded.
State.
Pa..............
Mass.4.........
Mich...........
Ind.............
Minn.4........
Nev.............
Cal
W. Va.2
Nebr...........
Idaho .
Iowa4.........
S. Dak .
Percent
of em
ployees
covered.
88.8
87.8
83.1
79.4
79.0
76.2
76.2
74.7
70.4
68.7
62.7
58.0
Numerical exclusions.
State.
Conn.1.........
R. I.............
Ohio 1.........
Wis.............
Utah...........
Me..............
Colo.............
Del.2...........
Vt.4.............
Ky.4...........
Tex.2...........
P. R.2..........
Per cent
of em
ployees
covered.
81.9
80.0
77.3
74.7
73.1
72.9
63.1
62.9
55.2
54.7
42.5
18.4
Nonhazardous
exclusions.
State.
N. H.».........
N. Y ...........
Ill...............
Ariz.2..........
Wash.4........
Mont...........
Md.4...........
Oreg...........
Wyo.4..........
Kans.4........
La..............
Okla.4.........
Alaska 2......
New Mex.2..
Per cent
of em
ployees
covered.
56.9
55.9
54.1
52.4
51.5
50.9
45.9
44.4
40.0
36.9
35.2
34.6
31.2
30.7
i Agriculture and domestic service not specifically exempted.
* All public employees exempted.
* Hawaii exempts employments not in the usual course of the employer's business and those not con
ducted for gain.
4Public employees partially exempted.
32
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PEN SATIO N LAW S.
Taking the median State in each group as a basis of comparison
there is a difference of from 8 to 23 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 12 States excluding agriculture
and domestic service; 68 per cent for the 12 numerical exemption
States; and 45.1 for the 14 nonhazardous 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, 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 emploj^ees 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.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXCLUDED UNDER COMPENSATION ACTS
AND PER CENT OF SUCH EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES WHO ARE EXCLUDED BECAUSE
OF EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE, DOMESTIC SERVICE, NONHAZARDOUS EM
PLOYMENTS* 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.
Of total employees excluded, per cent
excluded by—
State.
Number. Per cent. Agricul
ture.
Domes
tic serv
ice.
19.0
41.9
62.5
40.4
30.6
41.0
83.7
19.1
68.5
52.4
25.0
45.1
48.7
41.8
26.9
23.9
64.6
57.6
41.7
61.2
69.0
22.7
19.5
18.6
37.5
29.5
49.5
36.5
93.4
16.3
25.5
31.5
19.4
17.3
34.6
27.4
37.4
31.5
57.3
35.4
40.6
22.2
38.8
31.0
22.1
58.5
11.6
34.6
37.6
29.6
42.7
15.4
32.8
41.7
17.7
19.8
57.3
23,067
Alaska......
29, .519
Ariz
. .
192, T9J
Cal
80,215
Colo
71,402
Conn
22,075
Del
6,424
Hawaii__
22,784
Idaho
111............. 702,784
130,093
Ind
158,716
Iowa
Kans........ 184,654
190,272
Kv
258,053
La
55,708
Me
217,376
Md
153,237
Mass
121,648
Mich
Minn
100,449
54,636
Mont
61,301
Nebr
7,735
Nev..........
62,522
N. H ........
2,000
N. J
45,289
N. Mex__
N. Y ........ 1,297,484
312,842
Ohio......
Okla......... 159,532
Oreg......... 101,960
Pa............ 269.318
68. ?
47.6
76.8
36.9
18.1
37.1
7.4
31.3
44.6
20.6
37.3
63.1
45.3
64.8
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
49.1
29.6
23.8
44.0
.2
69.3
41.5
22.7
65.4
51.3
11.2
Of total employees, per cent
excluded by
Numer Nonhaz
ardous Agricul
ical
other ture.
exemp and
exemp
tions.1
tions.
0.2
30.1
19.9
22.5
61.3
39.5
6.6
55.4
9.0
20.3
20.8
28.2
48.6
23.9
41.6
18.8
1.8
36.1
3.4
22.0
23.7
4.4
51.8
100.0
4.1
55.6
40.3
50.6
13.0
20.0
14.9
14.9
5.6
15.2
Domes
tic serv
ice.
25.5
8.5
14.1
19.5
15.8
20.5
31.6
11.3
14.2
2.9
10.9
12.1
20.3
18.1
16.4
10.0
13.4
8.9
8.9
10.9
8.9
13.5
7.5
5.8
11.4
6.5
9.4
10.9
15. 7
17.6
10.1
16.9
6.9
6.0
8.3
10.9
11.5
7.4
9.7
40.5
4.8
8.2
24.6
15.2
4.8
10.6
13.6
9.9
11.6
10.1
6.4
*Does not include agriculture or domestic service.
Numer
ical
exemp
tions.1
0.2
11.1
3.6
8.4
53
9.1
5. 7
12.1
1.5
2.0
5.6
2.8
33
SCOPE OP TH E LAW S.
ESTIM ATED NUM BER OF EM PLOYEES EX C L U D E D , ETC —Concluded
Total employees
excluded.
Of total employees excluded, per cent
excluded by—
State.
Domes
Number. Per cent. Agricul
tic serv
ture.
ice.
P. R .........
R. I ..........
S. Dak___
Tex..........
Utah
Vt.............
Wash........
W. Va
Wis..........
Wyo.........
Of total employees, per cent
excluded by—
Numer- Nonhaz
ardous Agricul
• ical
other ture.
exemp and
exemp
tions.1 tions.
......... 30.’ i*
60.8
3.2
28.5
28.7
13.0
17.8
13.8
13.0
11.8
28.4
14.9
8.6
13.5
15.0
9.1
13.5
9.8
6.3
10.4
10.0
28.5
11.1
9.9
270,838
35,604
38,884
333,243
21,839
41,279
180,085
62,451
131,888
24,839
81.6
17.0
42.0
52.1
26.9
44.8
48.5
25.3
24.6
58.0
74.5
18.7
68.1
55.1
48.3
39.8
28.5
55.4
48.0
49.0
17.9
50.4
31.9
28.9
34.0
30.2
20.3
26.9
42.4
17.3
6.0
30.9
0.7
9.5
17.7
28.2
6.5
3 .6
Total.. 6,236,136
31.3
35.5
31.5
4.5
9.6
Domes
tic serv
ice.
51.2
17.7
N u m e r
ic 1
exemp
tions.1
5.0
4 .9
10.4
4 .8
12.6
3.1
4.2
1.4
1Does not include agriculture or domestic service.
It will be recalled that 6,236,136, or 31.3 per cent of the total em
ployees, are not covered by compensation legislation in the 40 com
pensation States, and that these exclusions have been brought about
in several ways. It will be noted that of these 35.5 per cent1 have
been excluded through the exemption of agriculture, 31.5 per cent2
through the exemption of domestic service, 4.5 per cent3 through
the exemption of the small employer, and 28.5 per cent4 through the
exemption of nonhazardous employments. These exclusions con
stitute, respectively, 11.1 per cent, 9.9 p#er cent, 1.4 per cent, and 8.9
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 may constitute 60 per cent of the total excluded if
only farm labor and domestic service are excluded, but would con
stitute a much smaller percentage of the total if nonhazardous em
ployments were also excluded.
It will be noted that the percentage of total exclusions due to agri
culture alone ranges from 11.6 per cent in New York 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
1 2,213,250 employees.
2 1,965,600 employees.
28941°— 18------ 3
* 283,279 employees.
4 1,773,998 employees.
34
COMPARISON 03T W O R K M E N ’ S CO M PEN SATIO N LAW S.
of fact, however, this is not true. In some States practically all
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
stitute 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. The
following table gives the estimates furnished by the States them
selves :
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE BROUGHT UNDER COMPENSATION ACTS
AND NUMBER ACTUALLY UNDER THE ACTS IN THE 28 ELECTIVE STATES.
Elective State.
Alaska...............................
Colorado.................................
Connecticut.......................
Delaware................................
Indiana........ .....................
Iowa..................................
Kansas...... ...................... .
Kentucky..........................
Louisiana...........................
Maine......................................
Massachusetts...... .............
M ic h ig a n ..................................
M innesota..................................
M on tan a....................................
N eb ra sk a......................... ..
N e v a d a ...................... ..............
N ew H a m p sh ire .....................
N ew J ersey ........................
N ew M e x ico .............................
O regon ...............................
P en n s y lv a n ia .....................
P orto R ico ........................
R h od e Is la n d .....................
South Dakota..............
Texas.................................
V e rm o n t....................................
West Virginia..........................
Wiscjnsin..........................
Number of
employees
who may be
brought un
der compen
sation acts as Number of employers rejecting the act, and number of em
computed by
actually under acts through employers' election as
United States ployees
estimated by the several States.
Bureau of
*
Labor
Statistics,
based upon
the 1910
census.
10,481
137,157
322,211 7 employers rejected act (1915).
37,447
502,729
266,936 Over 25 per cent of employees, estimated at 30,000, subject to
act not insured (1916).1
108,388
230,135
140,239
150,305 152.000 (1917).
1.109,134 650.000 (1915).*
597,585 505,025 (1915).
379,349
56,826 48,502 (1916).3
146,034 37 employers rejected act (1915).
24,746 11,306 (1916).
79,680 19,000 (1916).
861,963
20,073
96,910 80-85 per cent (1915).*
2,149,867
61,207
173,915 154,538 (1915).
53,997
306,777 206.000 (1916).
50,942 55.000 (1916). Only one employer has rejected the act.
203,139 155,062 (1914).
405,009 Over 250,000. 551 employers with 3,000 employees rejected
act (1915).
1 Failure to insure supposed to be due to stringent insurance provisions.
1Total subject to act estimated by industrial' accident board at 800,000.
* Board reports that 97 per cent of the employees subject to act are covered at present (1917).
« Estimated by writer at 72,500.
ABROGATION OF DEFENSES.
35
HOW ELECTION IS MADE.
Under this head are indicated the methods required by the laws
for their acceptance or rejection in the 28 States where the elective
system is provided. In 18 States1 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 States2
he elects by filing acceptances with designated State authorities,
while in 3 States3 election is made either by insuring in authorized
casualty companies or by subscribing to the State fund. In the 18
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. This
provision invalidated the old Kentucky act, and was also questioned
in Texas, but the supreme court of that State held the law constitu
tional 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 28 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. In 2 States4 such abrogation is absolute, irrespective of
whether the employer accepts or rejects the act, but in all the other
States the defenses are abrogated only if the employer rejects 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 his three defenses.
1 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, South Dakota,
Vermont, and Wisconsin.
a Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Rhode island.
8 Massachusetts, Texas, and West Virginia.
4 New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
36
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N *S COM PENSATION LAW S.
The defenses of assumed risk and fellow service are abrogated
in each of the 28 elective States without restriction. The defense of
contributory negligence, however, is abrogated unqualifiedly only in
15 1 of the 28 States. In 12 States2 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 State8 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 13 States.4 In
the other 27 States employees are permitted to sue upon certain con
ditions, generally some neglect on the part of the employer. The
following table shows in which States and upon what conditions
employees are allowed to bring actions at law:
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUITS FOR DAMAGES MAY BE BROUGHT WHEN BOTH
PARTIES COME UNDER ACT.
Not permitted.
Alaska.
Hawaii..
Idaho...
Kansas..
Louisiana.
Maine......
Massachusetts.
Minnesota......
New Jersey..
IsevV Mexico..
Permitted.
Conditions under which they are permitted.
Arizona.......
California__
Colorado___
Connecticut.
Delaware___
After injury. Defense of contributory negligence alone remains.
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
If employer, insuring in State fund, is in arrears on premiums.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
Illinois..
Indiana.
Iowa----
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
Kentucky..
If 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 ailure to insure.
Defenses abrogated.
Michigan..
If employer, insuring in State fund, is in default on insurance premiums.
Montana...... If employer, insuring in State fund, is in default on insurance premiums.
Nebraska___ If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
Nevada........ If employer is in default on insurance premiums.
New Hamp In lieu of compensation, after injury.
shire.
New York..
Ohio...........
Oklahoma..
Oregon......
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
If injury is due to willful act of employer, violation of safety law, or if
employer is in default on insurance premiums. Defenses abrogated.
If employer fails to insure his risk. Defenses abrogated.
If injury is due to willful act of employer, or if employer is in default on
insurance premiums. Defenses abrogated.
1 Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Mexico, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and West
Virginia.
2 Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
8 New Hampshire.
4 Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
SUITS FOR DAMAGES.
37
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUITS FOR DAMAGES MAY BE BROUGHT WHEN BOTH
PARTIES COME UNDER ACT—Concluded.
Not permitted.
Permitted.
Conditions under which they are permitted.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If injury is due to employer’s willful or criminal negligence.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
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.
Pennsylvania.
Porto Rico—
Rhode Island .
South Dakota.
Texas.............
Vermont..........
Wisconsin . ...
Wyoming........
Washington... If injury is due to employer’s deliberate intention.3
West Virginia. If injury is due to employer's deliberate intention,2 or if employer is in
default on insurance premiums.
\
i In addition to compensation.
* Excess damages in addition to compensation.
It will be noted that 9 States1 permit suit if the injury was due
to a willful act, willful misconduct, or gross negligence of the em
ployer ; 2 2 2 permit it in case the employer fails to insure his risk or
is in default on insurance premiums; 1 3 if the employer has violated
the safety laws; 1 4 if he has illegally employed minors; 1 5 if employer
charges part of insurance premiums against his employees; and l 6 if
the injury causes death. In most of the above cases the injured em
ployee has the option of either accepting compensation or suing for
damages, but he may not do both. In Washington and West Vir
ginia, however, where the injury is due to the employer’s deliberate
intention, the employee may bring suit for excess damages 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 7 States, where the law reserves the right to an
injured employee to bring suit or accept compensation after the acci
dent, 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 apt in New Hamp
shire, 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 employers have no
option. The former Montana statute, which fixed upon the employer
1 Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West
Virginia.
2 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mary
land, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn
sylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.
8 Ohio.
4 Kentucky.
6 Texas.
• Utah.
7 Arizona and New Hampshire.
38
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PEN SATION LAW S.
a double liability by compelling him to contribute to an insurance
fund and leaving him still liable for damages, was declared uncon
stitutional by the court. The failure to enact a Federal compensa
tion 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.
I f the compensation system is accepted by the employer but re
jected by the employee, the defenses remain available to the former
in 25 States,1 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.
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 18 States,2 except
that in 4 of these States3 the employer and employees may enter into
an agreement to maintain a hospital fund. In 16 States4 the em
ployer is permitted to establish and maintain substitute insurance
schemes or benefit funds, but is not allowed to reduce his liability as
fixed by law. In 3 States5 only existing substitute insurance schemes
are permitted. The laws of 3 States6 make no provision in this
regard, except that in New Mexico employer and employees may
enter into an agreement to maintain a hospital fund. I f the em
ployee makes any contribution to the fund or substitute system,
he must receive additional benefits corresponding to the amount
1 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp
shire, New Mexico, Oregon, Porto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.
2 Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington,
and Wyoming.
3 Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and Washington.
4 Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
5 Maine, Michigan, and Nebraska.
6 New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Porto Rico.
BURDEN OF COST.
39
of his contribution. This, of course, does not apply in those
States in which the law places a part o f the burden of cost upon the
employee.
BURDEN OF COST.
With but two exceptions the burden of cost for compensation is
entirely on the employer. Oregon and West Virginia alone require
employees to bear part of the cost, the contributions being deducted
from the employees’ wages. In Oregon employees are required to
contribute 1 cent for each day or part of day worked. 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. In West Virginia the employees must pay 10 per
cent o f the insurance premiums into the State fund, while the other
90 per cent is paid by the employer. Those employers, however, who
elect to carry their own risk must bear the whole burden of cost and
are not permitted to collect contributions from their employees; in
addition, these employers must contribute their share to the adminis
trative expenses of the State fund. Also the laws of Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Utah, and Washington specifically authorize the withhold
ing 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 and Nevada employers may re
quire employees to pay $1 a month for medical services; in Utah the
charges against the employees are not to exceed the actual cost of
maintenance, while in Washington employees are required to con
tribute one-half o f the medical expenses. The latter State has estab
lished local medical boards for the administration of the medical and
hospital service.1 The laws of Colorado and New Mexico, also,
provide that employers may contract with their employees for sur
gical and hospital facilities in lieu of the statutory medical benefits.
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 compen
sation scale as provided in the act plus the employees’ contribu
tions, and consequently 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
1 For a further discussion of the Washington medical system, see section under Medical
and Surgical Aid, pp. 76, 77.
40
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N *S CO M PENSATION LAW S.
vent this evil Louisiana amended its law in 1916, making it a misde
meanor 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 States1 penalize
the employer if he compels his employees to bear part of the com
pensation costs.
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 35 States having
compulsory insurance laws, such security is reasonably assured, pro
vided, of course, that the risk is actually and adequately insured.
A number of laws limit insurance to authorized companies, while a
provision frequently found subjects the whole matter of insurance to
the provisions of the compensation laws. In most States failure to
insure penalizes the employer either by subjecting him to a fine or by
permitting the emplo37ee to sue for damages. Usually, also, the law
holds the employer and the insurer individually liable for compensa
tion. Where monopolistic State insurance funds exist, such funds
furnish the basis of the employee’s protection in this regard. When
employers are authorized to carry their own risk, they are usually
required to furnish satisfactory proof of solvency and ability to meet
present and future compensation payments, or to deposit adequate
bonds or other security. Twenty-eight States permit self-insurance.
In 13 of these 28 States2 employers are required to furnish proof
of solvency or to deposit such security as required by the compensa
tion commission or insurance department; while in 15 States3 they
must deposit security in addition to furnishing proof of financial re
sponsibility. In four States4 they are also permitted to insure their
risk in authorized guaranty companies.
Another form of security in most of the laws is the provision mak
ing compensation payments xjreferred claims against the property of
1 California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mon
tana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washing
ton, and Wisconsin.
2 Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont.
3 California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Ne
braska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
4 Hawaii, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Vermont.
STATE SUPERVISION OVER IN SU RA N CE.
41
the employer. In fact, this is practically the only security possessed
by employees in the five 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.
STATE SUPERVISION OVER INSURANCE AND REGULA
TION OF RATES.
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 regulation of insurance rates by the State is still far from
satisfactory. Eighteen 1 of the 40 compensation States make no pro
vision as to rate regulation. The remaining 22,2 including, of course,
those having State insurance monopolies, require the approval of
rates, either as to adequacy or reasonableness, by the industrial com
missions or insurance departments.
The determination of an adequate rate for each industrial risk or
process in accordance with its hazard has been found exceedingly diffi
cult, due to the limited experience or exposure in certain industries
and the absence of reliable accident statistics. For the purpose of
combining all available experience the insurance companies organied a bureau 8 to work out a schedule of basic rates, to which is ap
plied the law differential for each State. This basic schedule is con
tinually modified in the light of additional experience. In order to
stimulate accident prevention work and to promote justice as between
employers in the same risk or industry, a system of merit rating has
1 Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, and Vermont.
- California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico,
Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
* National Workmen’s Compensation Service Bureau, New York City.
42
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATIO N LAW S.
been devised, in which the employer receives a credit or debit upon
the basic rate in accordance with the physical condition of his plant.
Some States have made use of these schedules, modified according to
their own particular experience, and a few of the States1 have estab
lished independent rate-making bureaus of their own.
It is apparent from the foregoing and other discussions that the
insurance provisions of the compensation laws vary widely. It will
be recalled that insurance in State funds is compulsory in Nevada,
Oregon, Porto Eico, Washington, and Wyoming, while in Idaho,
Ohio, and West Virginia State funds are the dominant method, with
a strong effort, notably in Ohio, to secure State monopoly; that State
funds in competition with other systems of insurance are maintained
in California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Utah; and that Kentucky, Massachusetts, and
Texas provide for “ employees’ insurance associations” of a quasi
official character.
With the development of the foregoing variety of methods, it is
inevitable that comparison should be made between them, this being
in fact the avowed purpose in some States. In Michigan, for example,
the different methods of insurance provided for under the act were
for the purpose of developing experience which would enable a choice
to be made therefrom. The discussion as to the feasibility and desira
bility of State monopoly, or even of State competition, has been con
ducted with vigor. Representatives of stock companies take the view
that the entrance of the State into this field of enterprise is unwar
ranted and undesirable. The opposite view, is that workmen’s com
pensation insurance is primarily a matter of public welfare into which
the question of profits of an intermediary agent should not be allowed
to enter; that the public alone is concerned, and that it alone should
act to secure the necessary adjustments and determinations in the
simplest form and with the least possible expense.
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, those due to the employee’s intoxication, willful
misconduct, or gross negligence are not compensable.
The following table shows the laws classified as to kind of injuries,
i. e., what and under what condition injuries are compensable and
noncompensable:
1 California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin.
43
IN J U R IE S COVERED.
COMPENSATION STATES, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO INJURIES COVERED AND
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAID OR DENIED.
Kind of disa
bility.
Injuries
arising
out of
and in
course
of em
ploy
In
Acci
dent.1 jury.! ment.
Alaska
Ariz...,
Colo..
D e l....
Hawaii
Idaho..
Ill.......
Ind___
Kans..
K y....
La__
Me....
Md....
Minn..
Mont..
Nebr..
Nev...
N .J....
N. Mex.
N .Y ...
Okla...
Oreg...
Pa___
P .R ..
R. I...
S.Dak.,
Utah..
V t___
Wash.
Wis___
Exclusions.
In
juries
In
in Willful
juries
course inten
inten
tion
of
to
em
Intoxi Willful tion
ploy injure cation. miscon ally
in
self
duct.
ment
or
flicted
only.
an
by an
other.
other.
Alaska
Alaska
Ariz.
Cal... Cal...
Cal....
Colo.
Colo.
Conn Conn
Del..
Del.
Hawaii
Hawaii
Idaho.
Idaho
111....
Ind..
In d...
Iowa. Iowa.
Iowa..
Kans. s
Kans..
K y...
Ky.
La.
La__
Me....
Me.
Md.
Md...
Mass
Mich Mich..
Minn..
Minn..
Mont..
Nebr..
Nev...
Nev...
N.H. N .H..
N .J...
N.J...
N.Mex.
N.Mex,
N .Y ..
N .Y ..
Ohio
Ohio12 Ohio..
Okla.
Okla..
Oreg.
Oreg..
Pa.13. P a ....
P.R
P. R.».
R. I.
R. I ...
S.Dak.
S.Dak.
Tex.
Tex.. Tex...
Utah.
V t ...
V t ...
Wash18 Wash
W.Va W.Va.19
W.Va
Wis.21.
Wis..
Wyo. Wyo/
Occupational diseases.
Excluded—
Viola
tion of
safety
In
appli- Specifi By
cally
word
0y cluded.
or
“ acci courts.
law. dent.”
laws.
Alaska
Alaska
Ariz
Cal.
Colo..
Conn. Conn.3
D el... Del.*.. Del.*.' Del..
Hawaii
Idaho
In d...
Iowa
Kans.6
K y....
La..
Me.7
Md.«..
Minn.
Nebr..
Nev...
N.H ..
N.J...
N.Mex.
N.Y.«.
Okla.
P .R ..
R .I...
S.Dak
Tex...
Vt.
W.Va.
Colo..
D el... Del."
Cal.
Conn.
Hawaii
idaho. Idaho.
111.....
Ind...
In d... In d... Ind...
Iowa.
Iowa..
Kans.6
Kans.
Ky..
Ky.*.;: Ky...
La!
L a ...
Me...
Md....
Md.8. Md...
Mass.8.
Mass.®
Mich..
Mich.
Minn10
Minn.®. Minn..
Mont. Mont..
Nebr.f
Nebr.. Nebr..
Nev...
n . h *.:
N. H.11
N.j” !
N.Mex
N.Mex
N .Y ..
Ohio.
Okla..
Oreg.8. Oreg..
Pa.14
Pa....
P. R .« P.R
P .R ..
R .I...
Sjbak.
S.Dak. S.Dak. S.Dak.
Tex.17
Tex..
Utah.. Utah.
V t .... V t .... V t ...
Wash. Wash
W.Va.5**
W.Va.
Okla.
Wyoj
Wyo
Wyo.
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.
8 Willful and serious misconduct.
4 Deliberate or reckless indifference to safety.
• Except when going to and from work.
• Solely.
7 Without employer’s knowledge.
®By implication.
• Included by decision of court.
10 By fellow employee for personal reasons.
11 Violation of law.
12 Court held that injuries must be caused by or incidental to employment.
13 While actually engaged in furtherance of employer’s business.
14 For reasons not connected with the employment.
16 Also while willfully intending to commit a crime.
16 Gross negligence of employee sole cause.
17 Also injuries caused by act of God.
18 Sustained on premises of plant or in course of employment away from plant.
19 In course of or resulting from employment.
20 Disobedience to rules.
21 Growing out of or incidental to employment.
22 Sustained as a result of employment and while at work.
23 Culpable negligence of employee.
44
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ’ S COM PENSATION LAW S.
A C C ID E N T S .
But what constitutes an injury? 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 of
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.1 Thirty
States,2 in describing compensable injuries, use some variation of
the word “ accident,” or 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 unexpected 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 more liberal in interpreting this
phrase. Compensation has been granted for sunstroke,3 frostbite,4
neuritis from vibration of punch press,5 cerebral hemorrhage caused
by gas poisoning, acute arsenical poisoning from inhaling fumes
from a furnace,6 nervous shock,6 angina pectoris,7 pneumonia,8
typhoid,* anthrax,10 arteriosclerosis,11 insanity,11 infection due to
compulsory vaccination,11 tuberculosis,12 lead poisoning,11 facial par
alysis,11 blindness due to inhalation of noxious gases,11 injury due
to poisonous gases caused by defective ventilation,13 and aggrava
tion of a preexisting disease.14
IN JU R IE S.
Ten States15 do not employ the term “ accident” in describing
compensable injuries, limiting themselves simply to “ injuries ” or
I Except Massachusetts.
• Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ken
tucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, Rhode Island,
.South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
3 California, niinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
4 Connecticut, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Wisconsin.
BIllinois.
6 California.
7 Massachusetts and New York.
8 Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
9 Michigan and Wisconsin.
10 Massachusetts and New York.
II Massachusetts.
12 Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
13 New York.
14 California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Ohio.
15 California, Connecticut, Towa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas,
West Virginia, and Wyoming.
IN J U R IE S COVERED.
45
“ personal injuries.” The meaning of this broader term, as inter
preted by the commissions and courts, is confusing and conflicting.
Apparently it was the intent of the legislature in several of the
States to include occupational diseases when it substituted the word
“ injury ” for the British term “ injury by accident,” but with a
single exception,1 the courts, where cases have come before them,
have ruled against the inclusion of such diseases. In two2 of the 10
States mentioned occupational diseases have been specifically ex
cluded by law; in four States3 they have been excluded by the courts.
In excluding occupational diseases in Michigan the court relied upon
the use of the word “ accident ” found in the title but not in the body
of the act. 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 com
pensation for accidents to workmen,” and repeatedly uses the term
“ accident ” in prescribing the methods of administration, it- is prob
able that occupational diseases are excluded. In West Virginia the
phraseology of the law favors more strongly the inclusion of occu
pational diseases. The original law included two references to ac
cidents, bat the most significant of these was changed in 1915 from
accident to injury. California amended its law in 1917, specifically
including occupational diseases. In Massachusetts both the board
and court have ruled that occupational diseases are included within
the scope of the compensation act. Hawaii also amended its law in
1917, specifically including this class of injuries. Although the Fed
eral law makes no reference to occupational diseases the commission
has ruled that such diseases are within the field of compensable
injuries and have awarded compensation accordingly. Of the 41
workmen’s compensation jurisdictions, therefore, only four (Califor
nia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the Federal Government) provide
compensation for occupational diseases. In Massachusetts and the
United States this inclusion has been effected through the decisions
of the commissions and court, while in California and Hawaii it has
been brought about through statutory enactment.4
A R IS IN G
OUT OF AN D
IN
THE
C O U R SE O F E M P L O Y M E N T .
The next limitation of compensable injuries is the condition under
which they occur. No State compensates for all injuries, irrespective
1 Massachusetts.
2 Iowa and Wyoming.
3 Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas. (In Connecticut, Michigan, and Texas the
courts overruled the administrative commissions, which had allowed compensation for
such diseases.)
*
For further discussion of occupational diseases, see article “ Disease as a compensable
injury,” by L. D. Clark, Monthly Review of U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for July,
1917, pp. 81-96.
46
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATION LAW S.
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 four States1 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 :2
It is not easy nor necessarj^ to the determination of the case at bar
to give a comprehensive definition of these words which shall ac
curately 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 of ” the employment when it comes while
the workman is doing the duty which he is employed to perform. It
arises “ out of ” the employment when there is apparent to the ra
tional 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 with
the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the
nature of the employment, then it arises “ out of ” the employment.
But it excludes an injury which can not fairly be traced to the em
ployment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a
hazard to which the workman would have been equally exposed apart
from the employment. The 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 em
ployment, not merely one of the hazards of existence. The commis. sions and courts generally have been liberal in their interpretations of
this 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 burglar3 and
where an employee was killed by an intoxicated fellow worker.4
As already noted, four States use merely the single phrase “ in the
course of employment,” thus considerably increasing the scope of in
juries covered, since such injuries need not result as a consequence of
the employment. 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 of ”
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,5 however, the court has ruled that the injury must be caused
1 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
2 McNichol v . Employers’ Liability Assurance Association, 215 Mass. 497.
* California.
4 Massachusetts.
®Ohio.
IN J U R IE S COVERED.
47
by, or incidental to , the employment. It has been maintained that
it is unfair to hold an employer liable for an injury which did not
result from the employment. On the other hand, the comprehensive
ness and comparative simplicity of this single phrase would decrease
litigation to an appreciable extent, since a large number of disputed
cases center around the question as to whether the injury arose out of
the employment.
EXEMPTIONS DUE TO EMPLOYEE’S FAULT.
Most of the States do not grant compensation for injuries oc
casioned in whole or in part through some gross fault of the em
ployee. Four States,1 however, have not accepted this principle and
allow compensation regardless of the employee’s negligence. Thirty
States withhold compensation if the injury was caused by the willful
intention of the employee to injure himself or another; 27 deny com
pensation if injury is due to intoxication; 13 if caused by willful
misconduct; and 9 if employee is guilty of violation of safety laws
or removal of safety appliances. For more detailed information see
table on page 43. Seven States,2 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 compensation 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 the employer’s failure to comply with the
safety provisions; Colorado, if the injury is caused by the employee’s
willful failure to use safety devices or obey reasonable rules, or is
the result of his intoxication; and New Mexico, if the injury is due
to the employee’s failure to use safeguards. Kentucky and Wis
consin 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
Washington 10 per cent, if the injury is caused by the removal of
safeguards. On the other hand, in five States8the employer is penal
ized if he 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 Wash
ington 50 per cent is added in case of illegal employment of minors;
1 Arizona, Illinois, Montana, and Utah.
* California, Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin.
8 Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin.
48
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S CO M PEN SATION LAW S.
while in Massachusetts the compensation is doubled if the injury is
due to the serious or willful misconduct of the employer.
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. Nine States1 have exemptions
of this character.
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. An
other factor restricting a compensable injury is the degree of severity
of the injury or the duration of disability caused by it. In most
States an injury, to be compensable, must cause disability for a cer
tain length of time, generally two weeks, and no compensation is
paid during this time. This noncompensable preliminary period is
known as the “ waiting period.” In two States2 there is no such
waiting time, compensation being paid for all injuries producing any
disability. The most common provision is that disability must con
tinue for more than two weeks, this being found in 18 States.3 One
State4 requires more than three weeks; four5 require more than 10
days; 136 more than one week; one7 requires more than six working
days, compensation beginning on the eighth day after the injury;
and one8 requires seven days after the date of injury. Qualifications
of the general provisions occur in 15 States. In Arizona no compen
sation is paid for the first two weeks, but if disability continues for
more than two weeks compensation begins from the date of injury.
In Nevada there is no waiting period if disability lasts three weeks
or more; in Rhode Island and Wisconsin if disability continues for
more than four weeks; in Washington and Wyoming if for more
than 30 days; in Louisiana and Nebraska if for six weeks or more; in
New York if for more than seven weeks; in Alaska, Michigan, and
South Dakota if for eight weeks or more; in Illinois if disability is
total and permanent, and in Hawaii if disability is partial. In
Maryland the waiting period is reduced from two weeks to one week
if the disability is total and permanent.
1 Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, Texas,
and Wyoming. Texas also denies compensation if the injury is caused by an act of
God.
2 Oregon and Porto Rico.
• Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, and Vermont. (In 1917 Vermont reduced its waiting period to
one week, effective July 1, 1918.)
4 New Mexico.
• California, Massachusetts, Utah, and Wyoming in case of temporary total disability only.
• Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
7 Illinois.
• Washington.
CO M PENSATION BEN EFITS.
49
Probably no other 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, nine States1 amending their laws to this
effect this year. One State,2 however, increased the waiting time
*from one and one-half days to seven days, not counting the day of
injury.
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 expenses. There is an irreducible minimum amount
of expense involved in 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. The argument that the abolishment
of the waiting period entirely will throw too heavy a burden upon
the employers is hardly valid because the industry eventually will
shift this burden to society as a whole.
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.
i California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Vermont.
* Washington.
28941°— 18------ 4
50
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PEN SATIO N LAW S.
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,
have based their awards upon the worker’s need rather than his loss
of earning capacity.
No two of the 40 States have identical compensation provisions,
and few States seem to have followed any definite theory in this
respect. The necessity for a workable law, not excessively burden
some to the employer and not conducive to malingering, yet afford
ing such reasonable benefits to the injured workman as to prevent
hardships of dependents due to the loss of income of the family wage
earner, has led to a wide variety of attempts to determine the
proper amounts to be awarded.
The compensation benefits are classified according as they apply
to death, total disability, and partial disability, and the provisions
for each class usually vary; moreover, there may also be different
provisions for permanent and temporary disability. In addition
to these compensation provisions most of the laws provide for medi
cal, surgical, and hospital treatment, and in a number of 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
preceding 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. Eleven States1 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
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 in
stallments covering a long period of time. For example, a lump sum
of $4,000 considerably exceeds the present worth of payments of $10
1 California, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas,
Utah, and Wisconsin.
COM PENSATIO N BEN EFITS.
51
a week for 400 weeks. Similarly the present value of a weekly pay
ment of $20 a week for 100 weeks exceeds that of payments of $10 a
week for 200 weeks. However, experience has shown that, on the
average, greater economic benefit will result from continuing pay
ments.
The following table shows the provisions of each State as to (1)
percentage of weekly wages, (2) maximum and minimum weekly
payments, and (3) maximum period of compensation:
PER CENT OF WEEKLY WAGES PAID AS COMPENSATION, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
WEEKLY PAYMENTS ;AND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF COMPENSATION, BY STATES.
Maximum and minimum weekly
payments.
State.
Maximum period of compen
sation.
Ariz —
Temporary total No provision..
disability, 60 per
cent; o th e r s ,
fixed lump sums.
50 per cent........... No provision.
Cal___
65
per cent.
Maximum, $20.83; minimum, $4.17...
Colo
50 per cent.
Maximum. $8; minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
Conn..
50 per cent.
Maximum, $14; minimum, $5.
Del....
Death, weekly basic wage, maximum,
$20, minimum, $8; disability, maxi
mum, $10, minimum, $4, or actual
wages if less than $4.
Death, 25 to 60 per Death, basic wage, maximum, $36, 312 weeks.
minimum, $5; total disability, maxi
cent; total disa
mum, $18, minimum, $3, or actual
bility, 60 per
wages if less than $3 in case of tempo
cent; partial dis
rary disability; partial disability,
ability, 50 per
maximum, $12.
cent.
•Death, 20 to 55 per Death and temporary total disability, Death, 400 weeks; permanent
maximum $12, minimum $6, or ac
cent; disability,
total disability, life; tempo
tual wages if less than $6; others,
55 per cent.
rary total disability, 400
maximum $12, minimum $6.
weeks; partial disability, 150
weeks.
Disability, 50 to 65 Maximum, $12 to $15; minimum, $6 to Death. 8 years; permanent total
per cent.
$7.50.
disability, life; temporary
disability, during its continu
ance; permanent partial dis
ability, 8 years.
Total disability Death, maximum, $12, minim um $5; Death and partial disability,
and specific in
total disability, maximum, $13.20,
300 weeks; total disability,
juries, 55 per
minimum, $5.50; partial disability,
500 weeks.
basic wage, ma 'cimum, $24, mini
cent; others, 50
mum, $10.
per cent.
50 per cent..........
Death, maximum, $10, minimum, $5; Death and temporary total
disability, maximum, $15, mini
disability, 300 weeks; perma
mum, $6, or actual wages if less than
nent total disability, 400
$6.
weeks.
Disability, 60 per Disability, maximum, $15, minimum, Death, 3 years’ earnings, pay
$6.
cent; specified
able as court may order; dis
injuries, 50 per
ability, 8 years.
cent.
65 per cent..........
Maximum, $12; minimum, $5.
Death, 335 weeks; total disabil
ity, 8 years; partial disabil
ity, 335 weeks.
Death, 25 to 50 per Death and permanent total disability, Death, 300 weeks; permanent
cent; disability,
maximum, $10, minimum, $3; tem
total disability, 400 weeks;
porary total and specified injuries,
50 per cent.
others, 300 weeks.
maximum, $10, minimum, $3, or ac
tual wages if less than $3; partial dis
ability, maximum, $10.
Maximum, $10; mimmnm^ $ 4 . . . . . . . . . Death, 300 weeks; total disa
50 per cent.,
bility, 500 weeks; partial dis
ability, 300 weeks.
Alaska.
Hawaii
Idaho.,
IU.
Ind..
Iowa.
Ky.
La..
Me.
Death, 15 to 60 per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
Temporary total disability, 6
months.
Death, 200 weeks’ earnings,
payable as court may order;
disability, during its continu
ance.
Death, 240 weeks; permanent
total disability, life; tempo
rary disability, 240 weeks.
Death, 6 years; permanent total
disability, life; temporary
total and partial disability,
during its continuance.
Death, 312 weeks; total disabil
ity, 520 weeks; partial disabil
ity, 312 weeks.
Permanent total disability,
life; others, 270 weeks.
52
COMPARISON 'OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PEN SATIO N LAW S.
PER CENT OF WEEKLY WAGES PAID AS COMPENSATION, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
WEEKLY PAYMENTS, AND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF COMPENSATION, BY STATES—
Continued.
Maximum and minimum weekly
payments.
Maximum period of compen
sation.
Md.
50 per cent.
Death, no weekly maximum; total dis Death, 8 years; permanent total
ability, maximum, $12, minimum, $5
disability, life; temporary to
or actual wages if less than $5; per
tal disability, 6 years.
manent partial disability, maximum,
Mass...
661
Mich...
50 per cent..,
Total disability, maximum, $14, mini
mum, $4; others, maximum, $10,
minimum, $4.
Maximum, $10; minimum, $4............
Minn...
Death, 25 to 60 per
cent; disability,
60 per cent.
Mont...
Death, 30 to 50per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
66§ per cent..........
Nebr...
cent.,
Nev —
Death, 10 to 66? per
cent; disabilityr
50 per cent.
N. H ...
50 per cent...........
N. J ....
Death, 35 to 60per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
N. Mex.
Death, 15 to 60per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
N. Y ...
15 to 66§ per cent..
Ohio.
Okla.
50 per cent.
Oreg..
Monthly pension;
a m o u n ts not
based on wages.
Pa..
Death, 15 to 60per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
Porto Rico. 75 per cent...........
R. I.......
50 per cent.......... .
S. Dak..
50 per cent...........
Tex.......
60 per cent...........
Utah....
55 per cent...........
$12.
500 weeks.
Death, 300 weeks; total dis
ability, 500 weeks; partial
disability, 300 weeks.
Death, 300 weeks; permanent
total disability, 550 weeks;
others, 300 weeks.
Death, maximum, $11, minimum,
$6.50, or actual wages if less than
$6.50; disability, maximum, $12,
minimum, $6.50, or actual wages if
less than $6.50.
Maximum, $10; minimum, $6, or actual Death. 400 weeks; permanent
wages if less than $6.
total disability, life; others,
300 weeks.
Maximum, $12; minimum, $6, or actual Death, 350 weeks; total dis
ability, during disability;
wages if less than $6.
partial disability, 300 weeks.
Death, maximum basic wage $120 a Death, during life of or until re
month; disability, monthly maxi
marriage of widow or depend
mum, $40 to $70; minimum, $20.
ent widower; total disability,
during its continuance; par
tial disability, 100 months.
Maximum, $10; minimum, no provi Death, 150 times weekly earn
sion.
ings; disability, 300 weeks.
Maximum, $10; minimum, $5, or actual Death, 300 weeks; permanent
total disability, 400 weeks;
wages if less than $5.
temporary total and partial
disability, 300 weeks.
Death, weekly basic wage, maximum, Death, 300 weeks; total disabil
$30, minimum, $10; disability, maxi
ity, 520 weeks; partial dis
ability, no provision.
mum $10, minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
Death, basic wage, maximum, $100 a Death, during life of or until
month; disability, maximum, $15
remarriage of widow or de
(in certain cases, $20), minimum, $5.
pendent widower; permanent
total disability, hfe; others,
during disability.
Maximum, $12; minimum, $5, or actual Death, 8 years; permanent to
tal disability, life; temporary
wages if less than $5.
total disability, 6 years; par
tial disability, during its con
tinuance.
Maximum, $10; minimum, $6, or actual Fatal accidents not covered;
permanent total disability,
wages if less than $6.
500 weeks; others, 300 weeks.
Monthly pension: Death, $15 to $50; Death, during life of or until
permanent total disability, $30 to
remarriage of widow or in
$50; temporary total disability, $30
valid widower; total disabil
to $50, increased by 50 per cent for
ity, during its continuance;
first 6 months, but not over 60 per
temporary partial disability,
cent of wages; permanent partial
2 years.
disability ?$25.
Death, basic wage, maximum, $20, Death, 300 weeks; total disa
minimum, $10; disability, maxi
bility, 500 weeks; partial dis
mum, $10, minimum $5, or actual
ability, 300 weeks.
wages if less than $5.
Maximum, $7; minimum, $3............... Death and permanent total
disability, 208 weeks; tem
porary total disability, 104
weeks.
Maximum, $10; minimum, $4.,
Death, 300 weeks; total disabil
ity, 500 weeks; partial disa
bility, 300 weeks.
Death, no weekly maximum; total Death, 8 years; total disability,
disability, maximum, $12, minimum,
during its continuance; par
$6; partial disability, maximum, $12.
tial disability, 6 years.
Maximum, $15; minimum, $5............. Death, 360 weeks; total disa
bility, 401 weeks; partial dis
ability, 300 weeks.
Death, maximum, $15; permanent to Permanent total disability,
tal disability, maximum, $15, mini
life; others, 6 years.
mum, $5; temporary total disability,
maximum, $12, minimum, $7; par
tial disability, maximum, $12.
CO M PENSATION BEN EFITS.
53
PER CENT OF WEEKLY WAGES PAID AS COMPENSATION, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
WEEKLY PAYMENTS, AND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF COMPENSATION, BY STATES—
Concluded.
State.
Vt..
Wash.
W. Va..
Wis.
Wyo
U. S.
Per cent of weekly
wages.
Maximum and minimum weekly
payments.
Maximum period of compen
sation.
Death, 15 to 45per
cent; disability,
50 per cent.
Death, minimum basic wage, $5; total
) weeks.
disability, maximum, $12.50, mini
mum, $3, or actual wages if less than
$3; partial disability, maximum,$10.
Monthly pension; Monthly pension: death, $10 to $35; Death, during life of or until re
a m o u n ts not
marriage of widow or invalid
permanent total disability, $20 to
based on wages.
$35; temporary total disability, $20
widower; total disability,
to $35, increased by 50 per cent for
during its continuance.
first 6 months, but not over 60 per
cent of wages.
Death, $10 to $35 Permanent disability, maximum, $8, Death, during life of or until re
a month pen
minimum, $4; temporary disability,
marriage of widow or invalid
sion; disability,
maximum, $10, minimum, $5.
widower; permanent total
50 per cent.
disability, life; temporary
disability, 52 weeks; perma
nent partial disability, 210
weeks.
Disability, 65 per Maximum, $15; minimum, $7.50..
Death, 320 weeks; permanent
cent.
total disability, 15 years;
others, 320 weeks.
Amounts not based Temporary total disability, $18 to $40 No provision.
on wages.
a month pension; fixed lump sums
in other cases.
Death, 10 to 66§ Death, basic wage, monthly maxi Death, during life of or until re
per cent; disabil
mum, $100, minimum, $50; total dis
marriage of widow or wid
ity, 66§ per cent.
ability, monthly maximum, $66.67,
ower; other dependents, 8
minimum, $33.33, or actual wages if
years; disability, during its
less than $33.33; partial disability,
continuance.
monthly maximum, $66.67.
PE R CENT OF W AG ES.
In all but three States1compensation is based upon wages. A number
of States, however, provide for fixed lump sums for certain injuries,
but apply the percentage system to all others. Alaska, for example,
provides absolute amounts in case of death and permanent disa
bility, and 50 per cent of wages for injuries causing temporary disa
bility. In most of the States the prescribed percentage remains uni
form for all injuries, but in several it varies with conjugal condition
and number of children. This variation is on the increase.
It will be noted that in 22 States 2 compensation is 50 per cent of
the employee’s wages, in three States3 55 per cent, in four States4
60 per cent, in three States5 65 per cent, in four States6 66§ per cent,
and in Porto Rico 75 per cent. In the three remaining States1 dif
ferent methods are provided. Oregon and Washington provide for
1 Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
2 Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois (increased up to 65 per
cent in certain cases), Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.
3 Idaho, Indiana (total disability and specific injuries only; others 50 per cent), and
Utah.
4 Hawaii (total disability only; partial, 50 per cent; death, 25 to 60 per cent), Kansas
(50 per cent specified injuries), Minnesota, and Texas.
BCalifornia, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.
• Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Ohio.
54
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
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, on the wage scale. Five States1 have no maximum or
minimum limits; all these are far Western States, where wages are
presumably relatively high. Seven States2 have a maximum of $15
or over, two States8 have a maximum of $14, three States4 have a
maximum of over $12 and under $14, nine States5 have a maximum
of $12, twelve6 of $10, one7 has a maximum of $8, and one8 of $7.
DEATH.
The benefits for death in most cases approximate three or four
years’ earnings of the deceased employee. The methods provided for
determining compensation for death vary considerably. Two States9
provide for fixed absolute amounts without reference to wages or
length of time. One State10 provides for a fixed sum of $1,500, plus
75 per cent of wages for 208 weeks. Five States11 provide for annual
earnings for three or four years. The large majority of States, how
ever, apply a wage percentage for specified periods. Of these one12
pays compensation for 260 weeks; one 18 for 270 weeks; ten14 pay
for 300 weeks; four,15 312 weeks; one16 pays for 335 weeks; one,17 350
weeks; one,18 360 weeks; three19 pay for 400 weeks; three,20 416
1 Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
2 California, $20.83; Hawaii, $ 1 8 ; Iowa (disability only), Kansas, New York, Texas,
and Wisconsin, $15.
8 Connecticut and Massachusetts (total disability only; others $10).
* Nevada, $11.54 to $16.15 ; Indiana, $13.20; Vermont, $12.50.
•Idaho, Illinois (increased to $15 in certain cases), Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota
(disability only), Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Utah (death and permanent total
disability $15).
6 Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.
7 Colorado.
8 Porto Rico.
• Alaska and Wyoming.
10 Porto Rico.
11 California, Kansas, and New Hampshire, three years; Illinois and Wisconsin, four
years.
12 Vermont.
13 Delaware.
14 Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
15 Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Utah.
16 Kentucky.
17 Nebraska.
18 Texas.
w Arizona, Idaho, and Montana.
80 Maryland, Ohio, and South Dakota.
CO M PENSATION BEN EFITS.
55
weeks, and one1 pays for 500 weeks. Five States * provide for bene
fits until the death or remarriage of widow or dependent or invalid
widower. The Oklahoma law does not cover fatal accidents.
While most of the States provide for a uniform rate in death cases,
in 183 States 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 provide that the benefits shall not
cease if, at the ages named, the recipient is mentally or physically
incapacitated for earning a living.
The remarriage of a widow is made to terminate benefits in a num
ber of cases, though in a few instances a lump sum is payable on such
remarriage, either a fixed amount or representing a fixed number of
months of benefit payments. I f the beneficiary is a widower no pro
vision is made for a similar allowance in case of his remarriage. In
most cases the dependency of the widow is presumed, although in
several States proof of dependency must be shown.
In addition to the foregoing compensation benefits most of the
States provide also for burial expenses, the maximum allowances
ranging from $40 to $200. Twenty-six States 4 provide for such ex
penses in case the deceased leaves dependents, and all the States
except two5 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 four.6 In Idaho $1,000 addi
tional must be paid into the industrial administration fund; in Ken
tucky $100 additional must be paid to the personal representative of
the employee; in New York $100 additional is required for the crea
tion of a special fund, from which are to be paid benefits to em
ployees who sustain successive major injuries; and in Utah $750
additional must be paid into the State insurance fund if the em
ployer is not insured in the fund. The original Connecticut act pro
vided 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.
1 Massachusetts.
2 Nevada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia.
8 Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
4 Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mary
land, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wis
consin, and Wyoming.
5 Porto Rico and Oklahoma, whose law does not cover fatal accidents.
6 Idaho, Kentucky, New York, and Utah.
56
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATION LAW S.
TOTAL DISABILITY.
A few 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 allow in case of permanent
total disability a larger amount of compensation than in case of fatal
accident. Seventeen States1 provide that for permanent total dis
ability compensation payments shall continue for the full period of
the injured workman’s life, while in cases of death only five States2
make provision for payments during the life of the beneficiary. A
few also allow a higher percentage than for death. For the most
part, however, payments are limited to 400 or 500 weeks, and are at
the same rate as for death.
^
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 re
turn 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 the 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 different States, but provision is generally
made for loss of arm, hand, leg, foot, eye, fingers, and toes, and parts
thereof. All but five States3 provide by law for such schedules of
specific injuries, and in two of these excepted States4 the admin
istrative commission has worked out a schedule for partial dis
ability.
1 Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
a Nevada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia.
* Arizona, California, New Hampshire, Porto Rico, and West Virginia.
4 California and West Virginia.
CO M PENSATION BEN EFITS.
57
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 total
disability during the healing period and for partial disability if the
injury results in loss of earning capacity? Some of the laws are
silent upon the subject, but most of the States, either by law or ad
ministrative ruling, have made provision therefor. In 25 States1
compensation according to the schedule of specific injuries is in lieu
o f all other benefits except medical service; in seven2 States such com
pensation is in addition to benefits for temporary total disability only
during the healing period; in two States8 it is in addition to all other
benefits. One State4 provides for continuing partial disability pay
ments in addition to those provided by the schedule.5
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 hand, 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 by
removal or other change of conditions it would be impossible to take
any steps in the way of proof and the securing of the contemplated
compensation.
C O M P E N S A T IO N F O R D IS F IG U R E M E N T .
Frequently injuries cause disfigurement which may not affect the
injured employee’s earning capacity but may decrease his opportuni
1 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ken
tucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New
York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
* Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
8 Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
4 Maine.
5 For a discussion of the State laws relating to compensation for second or successive
disabling injuries, see article on “ The problem of the handicapped man in industry ” in
the Monthly Review of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for March, 1918, pp. 87 to 92.
58
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N S CO M PENSATIO N LAW S.
ties to obtain employment. Should compensation be awarded for
such injuries? Seventeen States1 make specific statutory provisions
for such contingencies. Most of these States limit compensation to
disfigurement of the head or face, while five States2 specify that the
injury must result in diminished ability to obtain employment. In
addition to these States the courts in three others 3 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 opportunity to secure em
ployment,
COMPARISON OF SCHEDULES.
As already noted, the schedules of periods of compensation adopted
in the various States include generally the same items, and it is pos
sible to tabulate many of them so as to afford a comparison of the
awards allowed by different States for specified injuries. In most
cases compensation is to continue for a fixed number o f weeks, though
in a few instances the term is measured by months. In order to make
the latter cases comparable with the majority, the number of months
indicated has been multiplied by 4^ to reduce them to weeks, the
nearest whole number of weeks being used. Several of the laws
provide for the loss of one phalanx of a finger or toe by allowing
one-half the compensation that is fixed for the whole member, and
the term o f compensation has been computed in these cases, which
accounts for the appearance of a number of fractions in the tables
which are not evident on the face of the schedules as enacted by law.
The following table shows the number of weeks for which com
pensation is payable for specified injuries in the severul States. In
this table has been included the schedule of severity rating formu
lated by the committee on statistics o f the International Association
o f Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. 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.
1 Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
2 Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Texas, and Vermont.
•Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota.
C O M PEN SATIO N BEN EFITS.
59
NUMBER OF WEEKS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE FOR SPECIFIED
INJURIES IN THE SEVERAL STATES.
Loss of—
State.
Total
disa
In Mid Ring Lit
Oth
Hear Hear
bil
dle fin tle Leg. Foot. Great er Sight
ofl ing, bing,
ity. Arm. Hand, Thumb. dex
fin
toe toe. eye.
o t 'i
fin fin ger.
lear. ears.
ger.
ger. ger.
Commit
tee1.... 1,000
600750
208
520 208
Del.2___ 4270 194
Hawaii2 312 312
104
156
158
244
Idaho2. MOO
Ill.».... . 4 416
500
Ind.2.. .
Iowa2... 400
Kans.2... 416
200
200
200
200
210
K y.2. ...
La.2.......
Me.6......
Md.2......
Mass.8. ..
200
200
C o lo .. ..
Conn.2, . .
(3)
416
400
500
V)
500
150
200
50
500
100
500
75
150
110
100
150
150
125
150
50
125
125
125
150
50
100
100
100
100
125
125
125
125
152
100
100
100
100
125
100
100
128
100
217
400
520
200
150
(3)
200
244
150
(3)
(3)
150
312
500
250
200
500
500
416
215
50
401
200
329
175
50
150
150
170
320
300
100
100
100
100
N. J.5__
N. Mex.2,
N. Y.2...
Ohio s ...
Okla.2...
200
50
125
125
125
125
125
200
200
Utah2.., <312
Vt.s....... 260
Wis.2.... (u)
400
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
173
200
50 500750
139
20 182
194
104
104
113
128
200
200
(10)
50
104
130
135
205
Mich.2... 500
Minn.2... 550
Mont.2... *400
Nebr.2... 4 300
Nev.5. ... (*>
Oreg.9. ..
Pa.2......
R. I A ...
S. Dak.&.
Tex.2....
100
110
150
140
240
100
205
125
150
104
108
156
87
"260
'i35
100
173
125
100
100
180
60
50
277
150
50
125
125
120
139
153
208
416
100
50
100
100
140
"ifio
170
160
. 1Committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost of the International Association of Industria
Accident Boards and Commissions.
2Payments under this schedule are exclusive or in lieu of all other payments.
3Payments during life.
4Thereafter a pension for life. (In Delaware total compensation not to exceed $4,000.)
6Payments under this schedule are in addition to pajtnents for temporary total disability during the
healing period.
« Payments cover total disability; partial disability may be compensated at end of periods given for
not over 300 weeks in all.
7During its continuance, total not to exceed $5,000.
s Payments under this schedule are in addition to all other payments.
f Payments under this schedule are to be reduced by any time for which payments on account of tem
porary total disability have been made.
10During its continuance, total not to exceed $3,000.
119 to 15 years, depending upon age of employee at time of injury.
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 the benefits provided
are in lieu of all other payments and are therefore comparable. In
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, however, these benefits are in addi
60
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATION LAW S.
tion to all other payments including compensation for total disability
during the healing period and for partial disability if the injury has
resulted in loss of earning power. Several other States also pay addit’onal compensation during the healing period.
The laws of seven States1provide 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 West Virginia law2 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 Washington law
provides for maximum amounts in case of a few major injuries, leav
ing to the industrial insurance department the working out of a de
tailed sechedule of payments based upon the statutory amounts.
California, however, is the only State which 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. 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. The following table 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 in
troduction 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 included, however.
A strict comparison between ^American and European scales is not
possible. Under the European systems payment is usually continu
ous during life and the compensation payments begin only after the
expiration of a period during which, in many instances, benefits are
derived from other funds. A general idea of the comparative stand
ards can, nevertheless, be obtained by considering the tables giving
the American and European scales.
1 California, Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
2 For the West Virginia disability schedule, see p. 62.
COM PENSATION BEN EFITS.
61
The computed table, based on the American laws, is as follows:
COMPUTED PERCENTAGES OF DISABILITY FOR SPECIFIED INJURIES, BASED ON
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY UNDER THE
LAWS OF VARIOUS STATES.
Nature of injury.
Com
Ha
mit Conn. waii.
tee .1
Ind.
Iowa. Kans.
Ky.
La.
Me.
Loss of—
P. ct. P. ct. P. ct. P.ct. P.ct. P.ct. P.ct. P. ct. P.ct.
48
Arm............................................. 60-75
40
100
40
50
50
50
30
36
36
78
38
38
50
30
30
25
Hand..........................................
14
12
14
Thumb........................................
7
10
19
10
13
10
One phalanx............ t
7
7
4
3
10
5
5
9
11
Index finger.................................
5
7
15
6
8
6
8
7
4
4
4
3
One phalanx.........................
3
3
Middle finger............... ... r___
5
6
6
6
7
7
10
5
5
One phalanx................. T__
4
2
2
5
3
3
3
Ring finger . rT_, .........
, ,
g
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
One phalanx
. ...
2
4
3
2
3
3
2
6
4
4
4
4
Little finger.................................
5
5
3
5
1
1
One phalanx.........................
2
2
2
3
2
L eg............................................. 50-75
44
48
48
44
35
92
35
30
Foot.........................................
40
25
66
25
31
30
30
31
25
6
5
12
6
7
7
Great toe.....................................
7
5
5
One phalanx.........................
6
4
4
3
3
3
Other to e....................................
2
3
5
6
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
One phalanx.........................
3
2
Sight of one eye...........................
41
26
24
30
20
20
25
25
20
Hearing, one ear..........................
10
19
6
10
Hearing, both ears.......................
24
50
30
100
15
Nature of injury.
Com
mit Mich. Minn. N. J.
tee .i
Loss of—
Arm............................................. 60-75
Hand...........................................
50
Thumb.........................................
10
One phalanx..........................
Index finger.................................
5
One phalanx..........................
Middle finger........................
5
One phalanx..........................
Ring finger...................................
5
One phalanx..........................
Little finger.............................
5
One phalanx....................
Leg.............................................. 50-75
Foot..........................................
40
Great toe......................................
5
One phalanx..................
Other toe.....................................
One phalanx..........................
Sight of one eye...........................
30
Hearing, one ear..........................
10
Hearing, both ears........................
50
40
30
12
6
7
4
6
3
4
2
3
2
35
25
6
3
2
1
20
36
27
U
5
6
3
5
3
4
2
3
50
38
15
8
9
. 4
8
4
5
3
4
1
2
32
44
23
31
5
8
3
4
2
3
1
1
18
25
28
N.
Mex.
Okla.
29
21
6
4
4
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
23
19
3
2
1
1
19
7
26
50
40
12
6
7
4
6
•3
4
2
3
2
35
30
6
3
2
1
20
Pa.
43
35
43
30
25
Tex.
50
37
15
7
11
4
7
2
5
2
4
1
50
31
7
4
2
1
25
37
Vt.
65
54
15
8
10
5
g
4
6
3
4
2
65
46
8
4
3
38
16
65
1Schedule of severity ratings formulated by the committee on statistics and compensation insurance
cost of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions.
As already stated, the compensation commissioner of West Vir
ginia has established on his own motion a table covering permanent
disabilities of various parts of the body. This is more flexible than
the statutory schedules, in that it establishes minimum and maximum
rates, between which awards may be made on the basis of the merits
of the case as seen by the administrative official, all awards being
made by the central office. The law of this State authorizes con
sideration of age and occupation in the determination of awards,
and it is probable that these factors are involved in reaching any
conclusion, the maximum and minimum rates being the bounds for
62
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
listed injuries. In other cases the award is made on a comparative
basis, measuring unlisted injuries “ with the nearest average fixed
loss that is listed in the table.” West Virginia, therefore, approxi
mates European experience in this respect.
The table referred to follows, with an explanatory note which is
in effect a part of the same. A table showing ratings for injuries to
the eyes, prepared by the same commissioner, is reproduced on a
later page in connection with similar tables.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERMANENT DISABILITIES EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL DISABILITY, AS USED BY WEST VIRGINIA COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER.
[The loss of an arm at or above elbow is considered a 50 per cent to 65 per cent disability, as set out in
paragraph (g) of section 31 of the amended compensation act of 1915, three weeks’ time being allowed for
each per centum disability; 50 per cent of average weekly earnings paid (maximum $8, minimum $4 per
week). Disability of 71 per cent to 85 per cent—40 per cent of average weekly earnings for remainder of
life; disability of from 86 per cent to 100 per cent—50 per cent of average weekly earnings for remainder of
life.]
Per cent.
Loss of— *
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Mini
mum.
Maxi
mum.
Average.
65
Arm......................................................................................................
50
Forearm................................................................................................
45
60
45
60
Hand....................................................................................................
Thumb,................................................................................................
15
25
Thumb including metacarpal bone......................................................
15
25
Thumb, one phalanx only....................................................................
10
13
10
15
Index finger..........................................................................................
8
Index finger, two phalanges.................................................................
10
Middle finger........................................................................................
5
10
10. Middle finger, two phalanges................................................................
5
Ring finger...........................................................................................
10
3
5
Ring finger, two phalanges...................................................................
5
8
Little finger..........................................................................................
14. Little finger, two phalanges..................................................................
Thumb and index finger, one hand......................................................
25
40
Index and middle fingers, one hand....................................................
15
25
10
Middle and ring fingers, one hand................................................... .
20
18
Ring and little fingers, one hand..........................................................
10
Thumb, index and middle fingers, one hand.......................................
30
45
Index, middle, and ring fingers, one hand............................................
20
35
Middle, ring, and little fingers, one hand.............................................
15
28
Four fingers, one hand..........................................................................
25
40
40
50
Thigh....................................................................................................
Thigh, disarticulation at hip joint........................................................
50
60
30
Leg.......................................................................................................
40
Foot..............................................A .....................................................
30
40
25
35
Fore part of foot only...........................................................................
15
All toes.................................................................................................
25
Great toe...............................................................................................
5
10
3
Other toes.............................................................................................
5
57
52£
52i
20
20
Hi
12J
9
7*
4
7}
4
4
32£
20
15
14
37£
27£
211
321
45
55
35
35
30
20
7i
4
The committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost of
the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions has recently formulated a schedule of severity ratings
of injuries computed on the basis of time lost.1 Death and permanent
total disability, each rated at 1,000 weeks, are used as the base and
the partial disabilities computed therefrom. The purpose of the
schedule of severity ratings was to obtain a more accurate measure
of industrial hazards, the schedule not being intended as a basis of
compensation awards. In fact, the committee disclaims any such in
1 For a complete report of this committee see pp. 123 to 143 of the October, 1917,
Monthly Review.
3
5
3
5
COM PENSATIO N B EN EFITS.
63
te n tio n . A s s u m in g , h o w e v e r , th a t th e s c h e d u le is a r e a s o n a b le m e a s
u r e o f a d e q u a c y f o r c o m p e n s a t io n p a y m e n ts , it is in t e r e s tin g t o n o te
th e p e r c e n ta g e s o f a d e q u a c y o f p a y m e n ts f o r th e m o r e im p o r t a n t
in ju r ie s p r o v id e d f o r b y th e s e v e r a l S ta te c o m p e n s a t io n la w s. T h e s e
p e r c e n ta g e s r e fe r o n ly t o p e r io d s o f t im e d u r in g w h ic h c o m p e n s a t io n
is t o b e p a id a n d d o n o t ta k e in t o a c c o u n t th e p e r c e n t o r r a te o f
c o m p e n s a tio n . I n c o m p u t in g th e p e r c e n ta g e s g iv e n in th e f o l l o w i n g
ta b le th e c o m m itte e ’s s c h e d u le is u se d as 100 p e r cen t.
PERCENTAGE OF ADEQUACY OF DURATION OF PAYMENTS FOR SPECIFIED IN
JURIES PROVIDED FOR IN THE SEVERAL STATES, USING THE I. A. I. A. B. C
COMMITTEE SCHEDULE AS 100 PER CENT.
Loss of—
State.
Total
disa
bility.
Arm.
Index
Hand. Thumb. finger.
Committee...........................
100
100
100
100
100
Colorado..............................
Connecticut........................
Delaware............................
Hawaii...............................
Idaho..................................
Illinois................................
Indiana...............................
Iowa...................................
Kansas...............................
Kentucky...........................
Louisiana............................
Maine.................................
Maryland............................
Massachusetts.....................
Michigan.............................
Minnesota...........................
Montana.............................
Nebraska............................
Nevada...............................
New Jersey.........................
New Mexico*.......................
New York...........................
Ohio...................................
Oklahoma...........................
Oregon................................
Pennsylvania......................
Rhode Island......................
South Dakota.....................
Texas..................................
Utah...................................
Vermont.............................
Wisconsin...........................
100
52
28
28
26
42
27
27
27
27
28
27
27
20
27
7
27
27
27
27
29
27
20
42
27
33
55
29
7
27
27
27
23
43
21
31
32
49
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
10
30
30
30
30
35
30
22
49
30
40
66
35
10
30
30
30
28
48
35
38
36
76
60
30
60
60
40
60
60
50
50
50
12
60
60
30
60
65
60
30
60
60
60
104
92
40
70
60
60
74
90
60
60
60
24
70
70
20
70
78
70
40
92
70
70
138
Average.....................
65
28
32
31
100
100
50
40
42
42
40
50
50
50
55
100
100
100
40
52
100
100
50
100
50
50
40
100
26
Leg.
Foot.
Great
toe.
100
12
40
60
30
40
70
24
60
90*
20
50
64
28
36
39
58
30
35
35
35
40
40
35
30
35
10
35
35
36
35
39
35
24
58
35
35
76 .
43
10
30
40
30
34
44
50
63
36
Sight
of one
eye.
100
100
100
26
33
36
51
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
38
13
31
31
31
31
38
31
25
51
31
38
69
38
13
31
31
31
30
45
36
76
24
60
60
30
40
50
35
35
38
43
33
33
33
33
37
33
33
33
33
17
33
33
33
33
36
33
33
43
33
33
58
33
17
33
33
33
33
47
33
53
34
76
30
60
60
50
60
60
40
50
50
24
60
60
30
60
60
60
30
76
60
60
86
T h e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s u n d e r to o k s o m e tim e a g o t o s e cu re
th e officia l sca le s o f d is a b ility ( Invaliditats-Skala) o f th e G e r m a n
a s s o cia tio n s ( Berufsgenossenschaften ) , b u t o b ta in e d su ch a sca le in
o n ly o n e o f th e th re e s co re in s ta n c e s in w h ic h th e y w e re s u p p o s e d t o
e x is t, th is b e in g th e sca le o f th e a s s o cia tio n m a n a g in g th e in s u r a n c e
in th e B a v a r ia n w o o d w o r k in g in d u s trie s . A n u m b e r o f s u ch a s s o c ia
tio n s s ta te d th a t th e m a tte r w a s in- th e h a n d s o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e
b o d ie s , a n d su ch ta b le s w e r e n o t u sed . T h e r e a re a v a ila b le , h o w e v e r ,
in th e lib r a r y o f th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s a n d th e L ib r a r y
64
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PENSATION LAW S.
of Congress books 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 a table presented
below, the list of injuries being one that was drawn up by the authors
(Imbert, Oddo, and Chavernac) of a French work “ Accidents du
Travail: Guide pour revaluation 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 first column, headed “ Imbert, etc.,” is derived; the four
succeeding columns present the basic data contained in the work
above mentioned.
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
“ Miller ” on page 66. 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 cpuncil 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 “ KonenKoln ” 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 association^ by F. Bahr. The two last-named
scales are presented in a volume, “ Handbuch der Unfallerkrankungen,” by Dr. C. 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 the table which
follows:
COM PENSATIO N BEN EFITS.
65
DEGREES OF DISABILITY FOR SPECIFIED INJURIES, ACCORDING TO VARIOUS
FOREIGN STANDARDS AND AUTHORITIES, EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES OF
TOTAL DISABILITY.
Nature of injury.
Loss of right or major—
Onpi phalanx only T___ T__ , ___ Z.
Thumb and index finger........... T.. T. r
Tndfix and middle fingers ..,. „., T.. T..
Ring and little fingers..........................
Thumb, indp.x, and middip. fingprs_Tr. r
Tndpx, middip, and rin£ fmgp.rs___
Middip., rjnp', and litflp^firigPT’.s.............
Thumb and three fingers’, ...................
Four fingers.........................................
Loss of left or minor—
Arm.....................................................
Forearm...............................................
Disarticulation at shoulder..................
Hand...................................................
Thumb................. -..............................
Including metacarpal bone............
One phalanx only..........................
Index finger.........................................
Two phalanges..............................
One phalanx only..........................
Middle finger.......................................
Two phalanges..............................
One phalanx only..........................
Ring finger...................... ...................
Two phalanges..............................
One phalanx only..........................
Little finger.........................................
Two phalanges..............................
One phalanx only..........................
Thumb and index finger.....................
Index and middle fingers....................
Middle and ring fingers.......................
Ring and little fingers..........................
Thumb, index, and middle fingers......
Index, middle, and ring fingers...........
Middle, ring, and little fingers.............
Thumb and three fingers.....................
Four fingers.........................................
Loss of thigh:
Disarticulation....................................
Amputation.........................................
Loss of leg..................................................
Loss of foot................................................
Fore part of foot only...........................
Loss of great toe........................................
Including metatarsal bone...................
One phalanx only................................
Loss of other toe.........................................
Loss of all toes...........................................
Loss of sight, one eye...... .........................
Loss of hearing, one ear:
Partial................... ........................... .
Complete............................................ .
Loss of hearing, both ears:
Partial.................................................
Complete........ ................ ...................
28941°—18------ 5
Imbert,
etc.
German
adjudica
tions.
French
adjudica
tions.
Austrian
Imperial
Office
ratings.
Italian
law.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
75
70
85
65
30
35
15
15
10
6
10
8
5
10
8
5
8
6
3
45
25
20
20
55
35
30
65
50
60-75
66-75
60-85
70-80
66-83
80
70-80
50-75
30
55-80
14-60
50-83
25-33
70
30
10-20
10-15
10
0-10
20
0-10
0-10
15
0-10
0-10
10
0-10
0
40
25-50
33-40
20-33
50-60
45-60
33
50-60
6-30
8-15
7-20
2-12
6-16
5-10
3-10
8-11
5-10
0- 8
6- 8
3- 8
0- 6
16
15
20
10
1-10
8
5
8
5
12
8-10
5
34-70
33-40
10-20
30-50
40-50*
50-60
60-65
60
65
60
75
55
25
30
10
10
8
5
8
6
2
8
6
2
6
4
1
35
20
15
12
45
25
20
50
40
60
60-75
60-80
60
66-83
66-75
75
65-75
50-60
25
50-55
10-20
50-83
25-30
65
25
10
10
10
0-10
15
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0
5-13
11-13
6-20
0-10
5-16
8-15
3-10
8-10
5- 8
2- 6
3-10
2-10
1- 6
85-90
70-80
60-65
45-55
20-30
12-16
15-20
4- 5
3- 5
20-25
20-50
85
66
50-70
50-60
35-50
10-15
8-10
10-15
10-40
15-30
10-15
50
20-30
15-50
12
15
8
1-10
8-10
20-35
33
45
5
20-25
25
13
30-40
20-35
65-90
43-65
60-65
5- 8
2- 8
7-20
33
50-83
66
45-65
70
60
50
50
10
7
15
30
5
35
10
4-22
45
40
66
COMPARISON 03? W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATIO N LAW S.
DEGREES OF DISABILITY FOR SPECIFIED INJURIES, ACCORDING TO VARIOUS
FOREIGN STANDARDS AND AUTHORITIES, EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES OF
TOTAL DISABILITY—Conoluded.
Miller.
Nature of injury.
Lass of right or majorDisarticulation at shoulder............... -. j
Hand .................................................
TnnlnfJiiHr rnetar'arpal bone.,.,.......
O tip. p h ^ n x only * . . ..... ........................
Two p h a J f l - n g f i S ................
Two phalanges...............................:
Oda phaJanx only. . . T, _______ ..
Twn phalanges ........ ...................
Thumb and index finger......................;
Tnrlp.x and middle finders....................
Middle and ring fingers........................;
Ring and little'fingers..........................
Thumb, index, and middle fingers......
Tn^AY, rniddip./fljid ring fingers*, . ____
Middle, ring, and little"fingers.............
Thumb and three fingers.....................
Four fingers........................................
Loss of left or minor—
4rm...................................... . . . . . ___
Forearm..............................................
Disarticulation at shoulder..................
Hand...................................................
Thumb...............................................
Including metacarpal bone............
One phalanx only..........................
Index only . ... .... ...........................
Two phalanges.......... ....................
One phalanx only . . . . . . .............
Middle finger. ....................................
Two phalanges__- ........................
One phalanx only..........................
Ring finger................... ................. ....
Two phalanges..............................
One phalanx only..........................
Little finger............. ...........................
Two phalanges..............................
Due phalanx only..........................
Thumb and index finger......................
Index and middle fingers....................
Middie and ring fingers........................
Ring and little fingers.........................
Thumb, index, and middle fingers......
Index, middle, and ring fingers...........
Middle, ring, and little fingers.............
Thumb and three fingers.....................
Four fingers.........................................
Loss of thigh:
Disarticulation.....................................
Amputation .......................................
Loss of leg........ - ................ ............ ..........
Loss of foot............................
I'ore part of foot only...........................
Losi of great toe............................ ...........
1nciuding metatarsal bone...................
One phalanx only................................
Los *of other t o e ........ .
I
of all toes ...........
I oss of sight one eye
Loss of hearing, one ear:
__. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Partial
Complete
........ .
Loss of hearing, both ears:
Partial
................
Complete . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Skilled
work
men.
Bava Rus
rian
sian KonenUn
wood stand
skilled workers’ ard, Koln. Bahr.
work associa 1904.
men.
tion.
Thiem.
Per ct.
Per ct.
Per ct.
80
70
70
30
40 ;
15
10
Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct.
60 70 -80
60
60 70 -80
22 -26
20
30
ii -i3
15 16 -18
10
6
13 -14
4 -5
10
10
10
10
75
75 50 - 66§
75
50 - 66jf
75
75
66§ 50 - 66§
30 25-30 18 -27
30
15
25 15-20 12 -17£
15
8-10
3 ;
60 -6fi§
25 -30
30 -33^
15 -18
10
15
5 -10
12
10
0
10
5 -10
10
10
10 -17*
5
11 -12
3J- 4
661-80
10 -12
50
35
25
20
60 ______ _____
50
35
70
70
50
70
60
50 60-70
50
60
20
50 BO-70
20 19 -22
15
■ o j- i i "
15 14 -10
10
4*- 5*
10 11 -13
30
10
10
20
10
3*- 4
7 -8
10
%- 3 '
9 -11
3-34
60
66§ 40 -50
60 -70
65
40 -50
60
65 ,513-00 40 -50 50 -60
25 20-25 12 -17| 20 -25
25
25 -30
10
15
15
8 -12
12 -15
5
10
5 -10
10
5
10
5 -10
10
10
7|-10
10 -12
10
40
25
20
10
50
40
20
60
55
40
85
75 40 -50
80 40 -50
40 ’ 30 -50
70 50 -70
60
50 ’ 56 - 0 6 *
30-40
10 15 -20
75
65
60
50
33
5 -6
50 -60
25 35 -50
25
35
10
20
10
20
10
25
0 -10
20
50
65
10 -40
50 -60
80
60
50
30-40
10
20
50
20
50
10
10
5 -10
5 : 3 -5
25 -40
75
50 -60§
50
0 -10
20 -33J
20 -30
CO M PENSATIO N B EN EFITS.
67
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. On account of their interest in the general field,
some of these rates are given in the following table, though not
strictly comparable with any American material:
D E G R E E S OF D IS A B IL IT Y F O R S PEC IFIED IN JU R IE S O T H E R T H A N MAIM INGS,
ACC O R D IN G TO C E R T A IN F O R E IG N S T A N D A R D S , E X P R E S S E D IN P E R C E N T A G E S
OF T O T A L D IS A B IL IT Y .
Russian standard,
1904.
Konen-Koln,
Name of injury.
L e ft
Right.
30
50
35
60
60
60
40
20
Stiff wrist joint........................... ....................................
Stiff elbow joint at full extension or full flexion.................. . .........
Stiff elbow joint at right-angle flexion............................................
Loose elbow join t........................ .................. ....................................
Stiffness of elbow and wrist joints. . . . . . . ................................... .
Stiffness of shoulder join t....................................................................
Inability to raise arm above horizontal position............................
Habitual dislocation of shoulder...................................................... .
25
40
25
50
50
50
30
10
40
60
40
60-70
70
50
30
35
Left.
30
50
3ft
50-60
60
40
20
15
50
60-70
50
50
40
50
Stiffness of knee joint at extension....................................................
Stiffness of knee joint strongly flexed or overextended.................
Loose knee joint..... ..............................................................................
Fracture of patella, with injury to extension attachm ents____ _
Right.
50
Injuries to the eye have received comparatively little attention in
American laws, degrees of visual capacity being noted in perhaps
but one statute. The subject has been given detailed attention in
European practice, the medical council of the Russian Ministry of
the Interior having adopted what is known as Josten’s table for com
puting the degrees of disability due to the weakening of eyesight.
The table is as follows:
JOSTEN ’ S T A B L E F O R D E T E R M IN IN G D E G R E E S OF D IS A B IL IT Y R E S U L T IN G FR O M
W E A K E N IN G OF V ISION .
S.
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
.00
•0.00
6.50
13.50
20.00
26.50
33.50
6.50
14.50
22.00
30.00
38.00
46.00
13.50
22.00
31.50
41.00
50.50
60.00
20.00
30.00
41.00
52.00
62.50
73.50
26.50
38.00
50.50
62.50
75.00
87.00
33.50
46.00
60.00
73.50
87.00
100.00
N o t e . —S. stands for strength of vision; the first horizontal line of figures gives the remaining strength
of one eye, and the first vertical line the remaining strength of vision of the other eye. The figure at the
crossing of the two lines proceeding from the respective figures in the first horizontal and vertical lines gives
the degree of loss of vision. Thus, when the vision in one eye is 0.20, and the other 0.10, the disability is
62.50 per cent.
Besides the strength of central vision, other conditions, such as accommodation, muscular action of the
eye, etc., as well as the nature of the employment of the injured, m ay be taken into consideration.
68
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATIO N LAW S.
In a small volume by a German authority, Dr. Maschke, this
subject is the sole matter of consideration. A French translation of
tliis volume is entitled “ Guide Pratique pour la Determination des
Rentes en Cas d’Accidents Oculaires.” 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
Josten’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
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 eight 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.
GERMAN TABLE FOR DETERMINING DEGREES OF DISABILITY RESULTING FROM
WEAKNESS OF VISION.
V isual
capacity.
1 to f
....
i ................
* .................
\.................
\.................
TV ...............
0 ................
lto §
0
0
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
i
i
i
0
5
10
10
15
20
25
25
30
35
5
10
25
25
30
30
35
40
45
55
ds
i
10
10
25
40
40
45
50
55
60
65
10
15
30
40
55
60
65
70
75
80
15
20
30
45
60
70
75
80
85
90
15
25
35
50
65
75
85
90
95
105
TS
20
25
40
55
70
80
90
95
100
115
YU
20
30
45
60
75
85
95
100
110
125
0
25
35
55
65
80
90
105
115
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 to those already reproduced.
CO M PENSATIO N BEN EFITS.
69
P E R M A N E N T D I A B IL I T I E S OF E Y E E X P R E S S E D IN P E R C E N T A G E O F T O T A L D IS
A B I L I T Y A S U SE D B Y W E S T V I R G IN I A C O M P E N S A T IO N C O M M IS S IO N E R .
Visual capacity.
0
1
3
5
6
8
10
11
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
26
28
30
31
33
20/20.............
19/20.............
18/20.............
17/20.............
16/20.............
15/20.............
14/20.............
13/20.............
12/20.............
11/20.............
10/20.............
9/20...............
8/20...............
7/20...............
6/20...............
5/20...............
4/20...............
3/20...............
2/20...............
1/20...............
0/0.................
Visual
capacity.
20/20............
19/20.............
18/20.............
17/20.............
16/20.............
15/20.............
14/20.............
13/20.............
12/20.............
11/20.............
10/20.............
9/20...............
8/20..............
7/20...............
6/20...............
5/20...............
4/20...............
3/20...............
2/20...............
1/20...............
0/0................
20/20
10/20
16
19
21
23
26
28
30
33
36
38
41
43
46
48
60
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
19/20
1
3
5
7
9
10
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
37
8/20
20
23
25
27
30
32
35
38
41
43
46
49
52
55
57
60
62
65
68
71
73
18/20
3
5
7
9
11
12
14
15
17
19
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35
37
40
7/20
21
24
26
28
32
34
37
40
43
46
48
52
55
57
59
62
65
67
70
73
77
17/20
5
7
9
11
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
27
28
30
32
35
36
38
40
43
6/20
23
26
28
30
34
36
39
42
46
48
50
54
57
59
62
65
66
71
74
77
80
16/20
6
9
11
13
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
5/20
25
27
30
32
36
38
41
44
48
50
53
56
60
62
66
68
71
74
77
80
83
15/20
8
10
12
15
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
45
47
49
4/20
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
71
75
78
81
84
87
14/20
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
35
37
39
41
44
46
48
50
54
3/20
28
31
33
36
40
43
46
49
53
56
58
61
65
67
71
74
78
81
84
87
90
13/20
11
13
15
18
20
22
24
27
29
31
33
35
38
40
42
44
47
49
51
53
57
2/20
30
33
35
38
42
45
48
51
55
57
60
64
68
70
74
77
81
84
87
90
94
12/20
11/20
13
15
17
20
22
24
26
29
31
34
36
38
41
43
46
48
50
53
55
57
60
1/20
31
35
37
40
44
47
50
53
57
60
63
67
71
73
77
80
84
87
90
94
97
15
17
19
21
24
26
28
31
34
36
38
40
43
46
48
50
53
55
57
60
63
0/0
33
37
40
43
46
49
54
57
60
63
66
70
73
77
80
83
87
90
94
97
100
Three weeks’ compensation is allowed for each per cent of disabil
ity, amounting to 50 per cent of the average weekly earnings (maxi
mum, $8; minimum, $4) for the time. For a disability of from 71 to
85 per cent, 40 per cent of the average weekly earnings is paid for
the remainder of life; and for a disability of from 86 to 100 per cent,
50 per cent of the average weekly earnings.
It is evident that the disability schedules on pages 65 to 68 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 developed
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 permutations and
70
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATION LAW S.
combinations. In the meantime much that has of necessity 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 correspondingly
increased.
In this connection it will be of interest to notice the conclusions
reached by an Austrian authority1 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
insurance institutes having charge of the work in Austria, while in
Germany there is a central body of last resort, the Imperial Insur
ance Office, by whose activities a uniform interpretation of the com
pensation law is secured as well as an effective continuous develop
ment. It is pointed out by Mr. Schnitzler that the Austrian institutes
have in all cases established a more or less extensive expert medical
service, by whose advice the determination of compensation is ef
fected, 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 origi
nal basic experience, adopted scales contained in the insurance con
tracts of private insurance companies, but quite generally increasing
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 of 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 and not having experience in the
great number of individual cases of which the medical and official
members are actually or presumably cognizant.
From the article by Ferdinand Schnitzler above referred to the
following is quoted: 2
W^ith increasing frequency the admission is encountered in techni
cal literature that the compensation scales now in use for specified
visible injuries are based on very faulty principles. In inquiring into
ihe origin of the scales in use, as, for instance, for loss of an eye, 25 to
88J per cent; loss of the right arm, 75 per cent, etc., one will be sur
1 F erd in a n d S ch n itzler, d ir e c t o r o f th e W o rk m e n ’ s A ccid e n t In s u ra n c e I n s titu te fo r
M ora v ia an d S ilesia, an d p r o fe s s o r in the T e ch n ica l I n s titu te a t B rlinn. D e te rm in a tio n o f
the con seq u en ces o f in d u s tria l a ccid en ts in A u stria .
M o n th ly R eview o f th e U. S. B ureau
o f L a b or S ta tistics, D ecem ber, 1916, pp. 3 1 -6 7 .
2 M on th ly R eview o f th e U. S. B u rea u o f L a b or S ta tistics, D ecem ber, 1916, pp. 38, 39.
CO M PEN SATION B EN EFITS.
71
prised 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 of 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
have no knowledge of the actual earnings of a large number of per
sons afflicted with a certain infirmity, of course, uphold the tradi
tional scales of compensation which are also adopted by the courts of
arbitration. In the case of insurance institutes which also consider
the earning possibilities of pensioners the officials charged with the
determination 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.
At 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 experiences of other persons similarly injured.
It might be supposed that in the courts of arbitration less weight is
given to the medical 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
of 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
72
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATIO N LAW S.
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 68*
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
The functional and professional reeducation of industrial cripples
and their readaptation to vocational pursuits has, after six years of
workmen’s compensation experience, hardly been thought of, much
less provided for, by our State legislatures or the administrative
authorities responsible for the enforcement of the compensation laws.
This rehabilitation and adaptation requires, successively, necessary
medical and surgical attention to relieve physical disability as far as
possible, proper fitting and instruction in the use of artificial appli
ances to overcome bodily disadvantage, reeducation to hasten and
encourage social and economic rehabilitation, compensation during
the period of treatment and reeducation, and Government aid to
insure employment consonant with disability. Although adequate
medical treatment is absolutely essential to complete rehabilitation,
only four State compensation laws1 require the employer to furnish
unlimited medical services. Several laws make no provision for med
ical treatment whatever, and in others the low maximum limits make
adequate treatment impossible.
This failure to provide adequate medical service indicates not
merely the opposition of the employers but 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 an end
in 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
was simply a means of accomplishing this result. Compensation
commissioners, however, have generally 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.
i C a lifo rn ia
( 1 9 1 7 ) , C onnecticut ( 1 9 1 5 ) , Idah o
( 1 9 1 7 ) , a n 3 P o rto Rico
(1 9 1 7 ).
M ED ICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
73
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 de
mands 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 very 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 of work. Usually it has been the practice to let these un
fortunates shift for themselves as best they can. These wrecks thus
set adrift speedily gravitate to the almshouses, or, in exceptional
cases, employers take them on as flagmen, watchmen, and the like,
and sometimes exhibit them with no little pride and self-gratulation
as evidence of the generous treatment accorded their men. In some
cases compensation commissions have held that injured workmen
were entitled to compensation benefits until suitable employment
had been provided for them. This has led some insurance companies
to engage in employment work injiaphazard fashion, but the results
have been entirely inadequate and unsatisfactory. The greatest
drawback has been the lack of definite and’ centralized responsi
bility to carry out and supervise this important work of economic
rehabilitation.
The usual 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 four 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:
74
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ’ s COM PEN SATION LAW S.
C O M PE N SA TIO N S TA TE S , C L A S S IF IE D B Y L E N G T H OF TIM E D U R IN G
M E D IC AL SE R V IC E IS F U R N IS H E D , A N D M A XIM U M AM OU N TS.
None.
2 weeks.
3 weeks.
4 weeks.
Alaska Del. ($25) . M ich.............
A riz... Me. (830).. Nebr. ($200)'-
30 days.
Iowa ($100) . Colo. ($100)
R. I............... Ind..............
N. H .. Mass.1....... N. Mex. ($50) S. Dak. ($100)
W y o .. Mont. ($50)
N. J. ($50).
Okla.3
Pa. ($25)
T ex.4.........
Vt. ($100)
8 weeks.
60
days.
90 days.
W H IC H
Unlimited
as to time.
111. ($200) N .Y . Ky. ($100) . Cal.
Minn. ($100) Conn.
Kans.2
($150)
N ev.1.......... H a w a i i
W is.1...........
($150).
Idaho.
La. ($150).
Md. ($150).
0hio($200).6
Oreg. ($250).
P. R .6
Utah ($200)7
Wash, s
W.Va.($150)
1Longer period under certain conditions.
250 days.
315 days.
42 weeks additional in hospital cases.
6 Except in unusual cases.
6Necessary medical attendance as prescribed b y commission.
7Such medical service as employer or insurer may deem proper.
8Medical service furnished during disability. Employees must contribute one-half.
It will be noted that 4 States1 do not provide for medical service
in the real acceptation of the term. Three of these 4 States2 provide
that in fatal cases involving no dependents the medical expenses of
last sickness shall be paid by the employer.
The following table gives in more detail the amount of medical
aid and 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 $25 in Delaware and Pennsylvania to $250
in Oregon. Others allow additional medical service in certain cases,
at the discretion of the commission or court.
AM O U N T OF
AND
CON DITION S F O R
M E D IC AL
LA W S.
S E R V IC E
UNDER
Medical and surgical aid.
State.
Period.
Alaska.
C al...
Colo..
Unlim ited..
30 days.......
Conn..
Unlimited..
D e l........
2 weeks.
Hawaii..
Maximum amount and other qualifications.
Only in death cases involving no dependents;
maximum $150 for medical expenses between
injury and death.
Reasonable medical and burial expenses in death
cases involving no dependents.
Such service as reasonably req u ired ....................
Maximum $100 unless there is a hospital fund.
Special operating fee of $50 in case of hernia.
Such service as deemed reasonable b y attending
physician. Special provision for seamen on
United States vessels.
If requested b y employee or ordered b y board;
maximum $25.
Maximum $150................................................. .........
COM PE N SA TION
E m ploy
er’s lia
bility
limited
to pre
vailing
charges.
Employee
may choose
physician
if employer
neglects or
refuses.
Yes.*
Y e s.
Yes.
Y es.
1 A lask a, A rizo n a , N ew H am p sh ire, and W y o m in g .
2 A la sk a , A rizo n a , and N ew H am psh ire.
4 E m p lo yer m u st change p h ysician s if requested by em ployee or ordered by com m ission.
M ED ICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
A M O U N T OF
AND
C O N D IT IO N S
F O R M E D IC A L S E R V IC E
L A W S — Concluded.
75
UNDER
Medical and surgical aid.
State.
Idaho___
........
11]
I n d .........
Period.
Maximum amount and other qualifications.
Unlimited..............
Reasonable service for reasonable period. Hos
pital benefit fund may be permitted in lieu of
statutory provision.
Maximum $200............................................................
Such service as deemed necessary b y attending
physician or board; longer at option of em
ployer. Employee must accept unless other
wise ordered b y board.
Maximum $100. K requested b y employee,
court, or commissioner.
If demanded b y employee; maximum, $150_ . . .
Unless board fixes other period. Maximum
$100, or $200 for hernia operations.
Reasonable services unless employee refuses to
accept; maximum $150.
Maximum $30, except for major surgical opera
tions.
Such service as may be required b y commission;
maximum, $150.
Longer in unusual cases at discretion of b oard ...
8 weeks...................
30 days....................
4 weeks...................
Kans____ 50 days....................
K v ........ 90 days....................
L a ...........
Me...........
2 weeks...................
Md...........
Mass....... 2 weeks...................
Mich........ 3 weeks...................
Minn
80 days.................... Maximum $100; court may allow additional
treatment, not over $200, if need is shown
within 100 days of iniury.
Mont....... 2 weeks................... Unless employee refuses; maximum $50 unless
there is a hospital fund; special operating fee
of $50 in case of hernia.
Nebr
21 days................... Unless employee refuses; maximum $200; no
time limit m case of major operations; em
ployer not liable for aggravation of injury if
employee refuses to accept.
Nev ___ 90 days.................... Time may be extended to 1 year b y commission;
transportation furnished.
Medical service and burial expenses in death
N H
cases involving no dependents; maximum $100.
N. J......... 2 weeks................... Unless employee refuses such treatment; m axi
mum $50.
N. M e x .. 3 weeks................... Maximum $50, unless there is a hospital fund;
special operating fee of $50 in case of hernia.
60 days.................... Such service as m ay be required or requested b y
N Y
employee.
Such service as commission deems proper; maxi
O h i o __ _
mum $200, except in unusual cases.
15 days....................
Okla
Includes transportation; maximum $250..............
Oreg ___
Pa ........ 14 days.................... Unless employee refuses; maximum $25, or $75
when a major surgical operation is necessary.
Employer not responsible for aggravation of
injury if employee refuses.
P R
Unlimited.............. Necessary medical service as prescribed b y com
mission.
H I
.. 4 weeks . . .............
S. D a k ... 4 weeks. . ............... Maximum $100............................................................
T e x ..
2 weeks................... Two weeks additional in hospital cases................
Such medical and hospital services as employer
U tah..
or insurer m ay deem proper; maximum $200;
hospital benefit fund permitted in lieu of
statutory provision.
14 days.................... Maximum $100............................................................
Vt
W ash____ During d isa b ility. Transportation included; employees must con
tribute one-half medical cost.
Maximum $150; $300 in special eases where dis
W . Va
ability can be reduced.
Longer if disability period can be reduced..........
Wis . . 90 days............
W y o ........ N one.......................
u. s
U n lim ited . . . . . . . . Commission shall furnish necessary medical
service for reasonable period, unless employee
refuses; transportation furnished ii necessary.
C O M P E N S A T IO N
E m ploy
er's lia
bility
limited
to pre
vailing
charges.
Employee
m ay choose
physician
if employer
neglects or
refuses.
Yes
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Yes.1
Yes
Yes
Yes.
Yes.*
Y e s .. .
Yes.
Yes
Yes.1
Y e s........ Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Yes.
Yes
Yes.*
Yes.
Yes.*
Yes
Yes.*
Yes.
3 E m p lo yer m u st change p h ysician s i f requested by em ployee or ordered by com m ission.
2 E m p lo yee m ay choose ow n p h ysician a t em ployer’s expense.
76
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PENSATION LAW S.
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 de
termine. Twenty-seven States include medicines within this provi
sion; 151 include surgical appliances and supplies; 9 2 include nurs
ing; while Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the Federal Government
include transportation. In Utah, oddly enough, such medical service
shall be furnished as the employer or insurer deems proper. 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, employers and
insurance carriers as a matter of policy often furnish artificial
limbs and other surgical appliances in order to restore the earning
capacity of the employees and thereby reduce their compensation
costs.
A notable experiment in the field of medical administration has
just been adopted by the State of Washington. This State, which
had heretofore not required employers to furnish any medical serv
ice whatever, provided this year for practically unlimited medical and
hospital service, one-half of the cost to be borne by the employees.
The act provides for a State medical aid board composed of the
medical adviser of the industrial insurance department and one rep
resentative each of the employers and employees. This board is
authorized to divide the industries of the State into five classes, ac
cording to hazard. Employers subject to the act are assessed from
1 to 3 cents for every working day of each employee, and con
tributions to the State medical fund are required once a month.
Deductions from the employee’s wages for one-half of the contribu
tions are authorized by the law. The State board is also author
ized to promulgate rules, issue a maximum medical fee bill,
approve physicians’ and hospital bills, and approve contracts
between employers and employees as to hospital benefit funds. In
case a hospital benefit fund is maintained by an industrial establish
ment the employer and employees must each hear one-half of the cost,
and in addition the employer must contribute 10 per cent of his share
to the State medical fund, of which the employees are again required
to pay one-half.
The act also provides for the establishment of local medical aid
boards for the actual administration of the medical service.
1 C a liforn ia , C olora d o, Id a h o, In d ia n a , Io w a , K a n sa s, K e n tu ck y , M a ry la n d , M in n esota ,
N evada, N ew Y ork , O klahom a, P en n sy lv a n ia , V erm on t, and W isco n sin .
* C a lifo rn ia , Id a h o, K a n sa s, K en tu ck y , M a ry la n d , N eva d a , N ew Y o rk , O h io, a n d U tah .
M EDICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
77
Each of these boards, composed of one representative each of
the employer 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.
SELECTION OF PHYSICIANS.
Probably no one phase of workman’s compensation has created
more administrative difficulties or caused more ill feeling than the
question of free choice of physicians. 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 profes
sionally. The interplay of these various and sometimes conflicting
interests constantly causes friction and creates innumerable diffi
culties.
Most of the compensation laws, as already noted, provide that the
employer shall furnish reasonable medical and hospital services to
injured employees, usually for specified periods, and in some cases
limited as to maximum amounts.
Three States1 specifically grant the injured employee the right to
select his own physician at the employer’s expense; while three
States2 specifically grant the injured employee the right to fur
nish his own medical service—at his own expense, however; and 16
States3 provide that, in case of the employer’s neglect, inabilit}^, or
refusal to furnish adequate treatment, the employee may provide it
at the expense of the employer. In three States4 the board is author
ized to order a change of physicians if it finds such action necessary,
while in California the employer must change physicians if requested
by the employee.
Most of these laws, however, make no specific provisions as to the
selection of physicians, but the courts and commissions generally hold
that the obligation of the employer to “ furnish ” or “ provide ” medi
cal 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 the efficiency of the doctor employed and
to provide efficient medical and hospital treatment; and, second, that
it is to the interest of the employer to furnish the very best medical
1 M a ssa ch u setts, R h od e Isla n d , and W a s h in g ton .
a C on n ecticu t, Id a h o, an d I llin o is .
3
C a lifo rn ia , C on n ecticu t, H a w a ii, Id a h o, Illiu o is , In d ia n a , K a n sa s, K e n tu ck y , M a ry
la n d , M in n esota , N evad a, N ew Y ork , O klahom a, P en n sy lv a n ia , T e xa s, a n d W isco n sin .
* K en tu ck y , N eva d a , an d T ex a s .
78
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATION LAW S.
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, the employee in some of the States is allowed to choose his
own physician, but the extent of this practice depends upon the policy
of the employers and insurance carriers.
Recently, however, there has developed a widespread movement
for free choice of physicians, which, as already noted, has found ex
pression in the enactment of amendments to the compensation laws
in three 1 States during the present year, specifically granting the
injured employee the right to choose his own physician. This move
ment, backed by practically the entire medical profession and a large
majority of the wage earners, is undoubtedly a reaction against the
practices developed under the system of allowing the selection of
physicians to be made by the employer. Since each s3^stem has cer
tain advantages and disadvantages, a discussion of the two systems
may be advisable.
SELECTION B Y E M P L O Y E E .
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, how
ever, is not always possible if the selection of the physician is beyond
the control of the employer, who is, as a rule, more competent to
judge the efficiency of the physician than the injured employee. The
foreign, non-English speaking, and not infrequently illiterate work
man naturally chooses a physician of his own nationality, who is often
incompetent and sometimes disreputable. Some of these physicians
not only attempt to mulct the employers by prolonging treatment,
making unnecessary calls, padding their bills, and overcharging gen
erally, but because of their incompetency 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 incompe
tent. Such treatment is always costly to the employer and frequently
harmful to the injured workman.
Because of these conditions many employers and insurance carriers
have insisted upon their legal right to select the physicians, and the
tendency to exercise this right seems to be on the increase. Most of
the large manufacturing establishments, and even some of the insur
1 M a ssa ch u setts, R h od e Isla n d , and W a sh in g to n .
M ED ICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
79
ance companies, have established hospitals in connection with their
plants. It is maintained that more efficient medical service can thus
he rendered at much less cost. Furthermore, it allows closer medical
supervision. A common complaint made by employers is that work
men will not report minor injuries, many of which become septic
and develop into serious cases. The prompt attention given to in
juries and the close personal supervision made possible through an
establishment hospital minimizes the danger of blood poisoning and
results in earlier recoveries. It is also maintained that malingering
can be better controlled and prevented when the employer has super
vision over the medical service furnished.
SELECTION BY EMPLOYEE.
On the other hand, it may well be asked, Why this widespread
reaction against the present system of selection by employers if it is
as beneficial as maintained by its advocates? Three reasons are gen
erally 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 therapeutic
value of confidence and faith in one’s physician is well recognized by
the medical profession, and this confidence naturally is assured when
the injured workman select's his own physician. Moreover, the in
jured 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, yet this is by
no means the general practice. The kind of service furnished by
many employers is entirely inadequate. There has been a tendency
o employ contract doctors, many of whom have not been especially
competent. Furthermore, physicians employed on a contract basis
frequently have more cases than they can take care of adequately
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 theory that it is cheaper for the employer to furnish
unlimited medical and hospital service on the ground that it reduces
compensation costs by an early restoration of earning power has
80
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S CO M PENSATION LAW S.
not been universally accepted by employers or insurers. Only four
of the 40 States provide for unlimited medical service.
Another important problem is to determine when the injured
workman has sufficiently recovered to be able to return to work. Ob
viously it is to the employer’s interest to reduce the disability period
as much as possible, and frequently this fact unduly influences the
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
opposition of the medical profession to the medical practices de
veloped under the compensation laws. Prior to the enactment of
these laws there had been no distinction in the treatment of injuries
which arose out of the employment and those which arose outside of
the employment. In each case the person sustaining the injury was
financially responsible for the medical and hospital treatment fur
nished: 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 cases where the patient could afford to pay. The com
pensation 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 13 States1 that they should be limited to such
charges as prevail in the same community for similar treatment of
injured persons of a like standard of living when such 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 doc
tors should be discontinued. They also believed it to be an injustice
to expect the medical profession to adopt a sliding scale of fees, gov
erned by their clients’ ability to pay, when other institutions and
businesses, including the very same employers and insurance com
panies, are not subjected to the same principles and practices.
There was also a tendency on the part of some physicians to pad
their bills and raise their rates. As might be expected, such a condi
tion immediately 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 com
pensation commissions were usually able to effect a working com
promise, but such compromises have on the whole been unsatisfac
tory. Insurance companies have refused to pay medical bills unless
they were satisfactory, and physicians in retaliation have threatened
1 Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Vermont.
M ED ICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
81
to refuse to treat industrial cases unless guaranteed their regular
rates. As a counter measure employers and insurance carriers are
beginning to furnish their own medical service, establishing dispen
saries and hospitals and engaging surgeons and trained nurses.
Obviously a continued extension of the system of establishment
hospitals and contract doctors would ultimately exclude a large ma
jority 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.
As a solution of this problem it has been suggested that the em
ployee be allowed to select the physician, but that the choice be lim
ited to such members of the profession as are competent and exper
ienced in the practice of industrial surgery. Qualifications for mem
bership in such a panel may be determined by the legislature and
ultimate approval given by compensation commissions, State medi
cal associations, or such other bodies as may be deemed advisable.
This is not merely an academic view, since under the present sys
tem of selection by the employer it has been the practice in some
States to allow employees to choose a physician from a panel nomi
nated by the employer or insurance carrier. It is urged that this
system of having special panels would eliminate incompetent phy
sicians from the practice of industrial surgery and at the same time
retain the beneficial results obtained through free choice.
Administrative commissions find the successful solution of this
medical problem a most difficult one. The laws of several States
provide a medical adviser to aid and advise the commission in
medical matters. Some States have appointed medical committees
composed of representatives of the medical profession and insurance
companies to study the whole subject and advise the administrative
boards. The Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board appointed
such a committee, which has apparently been of great assistance to
the board. Its findings have generally been approved and adopted
by the board.
A good indication of the views of the medical profession generally,
the medical problems arising out of the administration of a compen
sation act, and the attempts at solution can perhaps be obtained
from a report1 made by the Massachusetts medical advisory commit
tee to the physicians of the State:
A certain 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
1
Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Sept. 18, 1913, p. 444.
28941°— 18------ 6
82
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PEN SATION LAW S.
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. * * *
There is no agreement as to what the word “ furnish ” really
means. When no service is offered, or when the injured person does
not accept the service offered and calls on his family doctor, disputes
over bills arise. Disputed bills go to the board, and hearings may be
held, but even then the board seems to lack power to enforce its
decrees in the matter of medical or hospital fees. In fact, however,
the board reached, before we came into the matter at all, a sort of
working agreement with the insurance men that the companies
should pay reasonable charges for work actually rendered. Lately
there have been two conferences between the board, the advisory
committee, and the insurance men, wrhich have helped toward a rea
sonable cooperation on the part of the companies.
I t h a s b e e n n e ce ssa r y , t o k e e p p e a c e u n d e r th is a g re e m e n t, to a d o p t
a n “ in d u s t r ia l r a te ” as t o b ills , n o t a fix e d ra te , b u t a n u n d e r s t a n d
i n g th a t s e r v ic e s p a id f o r u n d e r th is a c t s h a ll b e a t a r a te n o t less
th a n th e a v e r a g e m in im u m r a te in th e lo c a lit y w h e r e su ch se r v ic e s
w ere ren d ered .
It seems to us that the whole intent of the law is not charity,
but rather to lift the injured workman out of the pauper class and,
at least for the fortnight following the injury, to furnish him with
the best care, to give him the best possible chance for complete and
early recovery and return to wrorking power. Some of the insurance
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 aet went into effect,
therefore this sort of thing should continue.
This committee believes that the law7 has worked out well so far—
for a new law—and that, on the whole, the medical profession has
lost nothing by it. In certain communities medical men previously
retained by the employers to care for injured employees have re
ceived less than their due consideration (often, in fact, not a particle
of consideration) from the insurance companies that have assumed
the employer’s liability. Here and there insurance companies,
usually the unimportant ones, have shown a desire to press the ad
vantage 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 ad
vantage.
T IM E F O R N O T IC E A N D C L A IM .
Limitations are placed on the time for giving notice and for mak
ing claims under the acts, notice usually being required within from
10 to 30 days, and a claim within from 6 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 the employer was not prejudiced, but if prejudiced the liability
will be reduced only to the extent of such prejudice. Many laws
AD M IN ISTRATIVE SYSTEM S.
83
also provide that no defect in the notice shall be a bar to proceedings
or recovery. The time for presenting the claim or bringing action
thereon appears usually to be fixed absolutely. As a matter of prac
tice, the commissions construe this provision very liberally; nor is
the strict adherence to the technicality of the law insisted upon by
the employers and insurers if the injury actually occurred and their
liability therefor is unquestioned. On the other hand, it is necessary
to protect the employer from false claims made by employees a con
siderable period of time subsequent to the alleged injury. It would
be difficult for an employer to disprove several weeks or months after
its occurrence that an injury 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
treatment so as to minimize the result of the injury and to secure as
early a recovery as possible. Two States1 amended the compensation
acts this year, requiring employees immediately to report all injuries
to their employers.
A D M IN IS T R A T IV E S Y S T E M S .
The three most important factors in a compensation act are its
scope, compensation benefits, and administrative system—in other
words, who should receive compensation, hoiv much should he receive,
and does he actually receive it, and if so, 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 regu
larly. As to administration, there are two general types of compensa
tion acts—the commission or board type, of which there are 30,2 and
the self-administrative or court type, of which there are 10.3
In the commission type, a special board, usually of three or five
members,4 is appointed to enforce the law, including the administra
tion of the State insurance fund, if such a fund is created. The com
mission is granted extensive powers and quasi-judicial functions. It
receives accident reports, investigates claims, settles disputes, hears
cases, grants awards, issues decrees, and, in case of a State fund,
classifies industries, fixes and collects premiums, and pays compensa
1 Colorado and Nevada.
2 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
York, Ohio, O klahom a, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Porto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
3 Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.
* A single commissioner in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.
84
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N S COM PENSATION LAW S,
tion. In some States it has the additional function of accident pre
vention, while in a few States1 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 States2 have
recently 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 re
ferred 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
Alaska, rejections of the act are filed with the United States commis
sioner; in Arizona, in case the parties do not agree, reference may be
had to the attorney general; in Kansas, disputes are settled by local
committees or arbitrators selected either by the parties in interest or
by the court; in Minnesota, notices and settlements 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 New Jersey, supervisory power over the act was increased in 1916
and this State now approximates more closely the commission type
of law. The workmen’s compensation aid bureau of the department
of labor receives and approves agreements and is authorized to at
tempt to settle disputed cases. The bureau, however, can not make
awards, its power being limited merely to furnishing information
and advice. In Rhode Island, acceptances, accident reports, and proof
of financial solvency are filed with the commissioner of industrial
statistics; while in Wyoming, the State treasurer supervises the State
fund and county assessors are required to report lists of extrahazardoils 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
1 Indiana,
New York, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Indiana, New York, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin. Also of similar type are California,
Colorado, and Montana.
2
SE T TLE M E N T OF CO M PENSATION CASES*
85
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
expedites settlements, and that the close personal relationship be
tween 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, and with three exceptions1 the States passing laws
since 1914 provided for this method of administration. 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, is frequent that the fear of discharge acts
as an effective deterrent in demanding compensation. In one of the
self-administrative States2 the secretary of the employers’ liability
commission, which had limited power “ to observe the working of the
act,” informed an injured employee of his rights under the law. The
secretary was told by the employer, howTever, that the commission was
exceeding its powers and that he objected to its meddling and inter
ference. There seems to be no question that some employers make
no effort to pay compensation until their employees request it.
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 af 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 subordi
nates. 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,
1 Alaska,
New Mexico, and Wyoming.
2 New
Jersey.
86
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S CO M PEN SATION LAW S.
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 require the minimum personal
attention of the commissioners is of utmost importance.
The most common system devised for this purpose is the settle
ment of cases directly by the parties in interest through the medium
of voluntary agreements subject to the approval of the commission.
I f the terms of the agreement conform to the provisions of the law
as shown by the accident report, it is approved. This work is
usually done by the clerical force and requires little or no personal
supervision by the commission. Of the 40 compensation States, 30
have this voluntary-agreement provision. Of the remaining 101
States, seven are the State monopoly insurance States in which the
State is the insurer and pays compensation direct to the employee
upon application, and the other three States2 have State funds. In
case the parties can not agree the matter may be settled in one or more
of several ways. In the 10 noncommission States, disputed cases
usually go to the inferior courts for adjudication, although two of
these States3 provide for arbitration committees appointed either by
the interested parties or by the court, one4 provides for reference to
the attorney general, and two 5 authorize the department of labor to
attempt to settle the matter. In the 30 commission States disputed
cases may go either directly to the commission for adjudication or
they may be first heard before a subordinate tribunal usually ap
pointed, in part at least, by the commission. These preliminary tri
bunals may be either arbitration committees, referees, or individual
members of the commission. Nine States6 provide for arbitration
committees representing the parties in interest with a member of the
commission, or deputy7 appointed by it, acting as chairman. Two
States8 provide for the appointment o f referees to hear cases subject
to review by the commission; in one State9 disputes in the first in
stance may be heard either by a referee or by a commission member,
1 Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Porto Rico, Utah, Washington, West Vir
ginia, and Wyoming.
2 Maryland, Montana, and Utah.
8 Arizona and Kansas.
4 Arizona.
5 Minnesota and New Jersey.
6 Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, and South
Dakota.
7 Idaho, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma authorize the appointment of deputies; in
the other five States a member of the commission must sit on the committee.
8 California and Pennsylvania.
• Kentucky.
NO N RE SIDE 1STT ALIE N BENEFICIARIES.
87
while two States1 authorize an individual commissioner to hear
such cases. The findings of fact and decisions of all such preliminary
tribunals are, of course, subject to review by the full commission.
It does not follow, however, that the States enumerated above are
the only ones having such preliminary tribunals. The commissions
in some of the States have very wide powers and may establish
methods of procedure providing for such tribunals. Right, of ap
peal 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
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 betwTeen the parties and helps to estab
lish a feeling of confidence.
R E V IS IO N O F B E N E F IT S .
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. All but
4 States2 provide for revision of benefits under certain circumstances
if conditions warrant. As a rule a review may be had upon applica
tion 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,3 however,
lump-sum settlements when once made are final and not subject to
review or modification.
N O N R E S ID E N T A L IE N B E N E F IC IA R IE S .
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
1 Indiana
2 Arizona,
and Massachusetts.
New Hampshire, Wyoming, and'Nebraska (if payments continue for more
than six months).
3 California, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nebraska, and Vermont.
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
88
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 has
become of especial importance since our declaration of war against
Austria-Hungary and particularly since the enactment of the Trad
ing with the Enemy Act. A large proportion of the workers in some
of our basic industries, especially coal mining and iron and steel
manufacturing, are subjects of Austria, and therefore enemy aliens.
The War Trade Board, in rendering a decision on the matter, dis
tinguished between resident and nonresident aliens. The former
are not “ enemies ” in the technical sense and their rights to compen
sation are not impaired. The status of nonresident alien bene
ficiaries has not yet been definitely determined.
The provisions as to the status of nonresident alien beneficiaries
in the 40 compensation laws can be seen from the following table:
PROVISIONS OF COMPENSATION LAWS AS TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN BENEFICIARIES.
No provision.
Excluded.
Alaska..
Arizona.
Hawaii.
Included.
Idaho...
Iowa.........
Kansas---Kentucky..
Louisiana.
Maine......
Maryland.
New Hamp
shire.
Now Jersey...
New Mexico..
Only enumerated dependents included.
California1..
Colorado___
One-third benefits, not over $1,000.
Connecticut... One-half rates except as to residents of Canada or United
States dependencies.
Delaware..
Dependent widows and children. Within one year em
ployer may commute payments to two-thirds value.
fllinois1.
Indiana.
Limitations:
One-half benefits; other half paid into industrial adminis
tration fund.
$750 maximum except to residents of Canada.
Half benefits to widow or children under 16.
Half rates except to residents of Canada.
Dependent widows, children, and parents. After 1
year commission may commute payments to threefourths value, maximum $2,400.
Massachusetts1
Michigan...
Minnesota..
Montana...
Half benefits to widow or children under 16, unless treaty
provides otherwise.
Nebraska.
Widow, children, and parents. Within one year employ' er may commute payments to two-thirds value.
60 per cent of benefits
Nevada...
New York___ Wife, children, and dependent ascendants. Commission
may commute payments to one-half present value.
Ohio..........
1 Not specifically mentioned in law, but included by court or commission.
N CORESID EN T ALIE N BENEFICIARIES.
89
PROVISIONS OF COMPENSATION LAWS AS TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN BENE
FICIARIES— Concluded.
No. provision.
Excluded.
Oklahoma1
Included.
Limitations: Only enumerated dependents included.
Oregon........... Widow, widower, children, and parents.
Pennsylvania. Two-thirds benefits to widow and children.
Porto Rico
Rhode Island.
South Dakota
Texas.............
Utah..............
Vermont2......
Washington... Parents only, unless treaty provides otherwise.
West Virginia. Widow, invalid widower, children under 16, or over if
incapacitated.
Wisconsin__
Wyoming....... One-third benefits to widow and children under 16.
1Fatal accidents not covered.
specifically mentioned in law but included by court or commission.
2Not
It will be noted that IB States1 make no statutory provision for
nonresident alien dependents, although in four of these States (Cali
fornia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Vermont) such dependents have
been included by the courts or commissions; four States2 exclude
them from the benefits of the act; ten3 include all beneficiaries and
provide for full compensation; while 17 States4 recognize them but
establish limitations either by reducing the amount of benefits pay
able in cases where the beneficiaries are nonresidents or by limiting
the classes of beneficiaries to whom payment may be made, or by estab
lishing both limitations. 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 immediate members of the injured employee’s
family; but even these restrictions open the door for injurious dis
criminations against American citizens by reason of the fact that in
juries to aliens whose possible beneficiaries are nonresident entail less
expense on the employer of such labor. Several European countries
have entered into reciprocal agreements guaranteeing mutual benefits
to each other’s nationals, but such a measure would be without prac
tical benefit in this country. Because of its unfairness to citizen
employees and as a matter of simple justice the discriminatory treat
ment of aliens, on the whole, lacks justification, even though the
clanger of burdening the State or municipality with dependent
charges is absent.
1 Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Oklahoma,
Porto Eico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont.
2 Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
3 California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Vermont,
and Wisconsin.
4 Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming.
90
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PEN SATIO N LAW S.
L U M P -S U M S E T T L E M E N T S .
Compensation payments are supposed to be a substitute for wages,
and accordingly every State except three1 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 would 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 widow or 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. And, furthermore, the commissions, 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 therefore provide
that lump-sum payments must be approved by the commission or
court and must be in the interest of the beneficiary or of both parties,
leaving the question of necessity or justice to the discretion of the
administrative body. Some States require that a certain 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 commutations on its own
motion.
The following table shows when and under what conditions com
mutations may be granted in the several States:
1 Alaska,
Porto Rico, and Wyoming.
L U M P -S U M SETTLE M EN TS.
C O N D IT IO N S U N D E R
W H IC H
L U M P -SU M S E T T L E M E N T S
C O M P E N S A T IO N L A W S .
91
ARE
P E R M IT T E D
UNDER
Conditions under which commutations may be made.
State.
Application made by—
Either party or commis
sion’s motion.
Motion of commission__
Lapse of time bef ore commutat i o n c a n be
granted.
Best interest of workman.
Best interest of parties.
6
months..............
Illinois............. ...... do............................
6
months in total
disability cases.
Indiana............ Either party or board’s
motion in case of per
manent disability of
minors.
Iowa................. Either party..................
6
mo n t h s ; any
time in case of
minors.
Either party..................
...... do............................
Kansas.............
Kentucky........
Louisiana.........
Maine...............
Maryland.........
Massachusetts..
Michigan..........
Minnesota........
Montana...........
Nebraska..........
Nevada............
New Hampshire
New Jersey.......
New Mexico___
New York........
Ohio.................
Oklahoma.
Oregon.............
Texas............
Utah.............
Just or necessary.
Best interest of parties.
Do.
Best interest of parties at board’s discre
tion.
Interest of both parties; either party may
reject board’s award, except m death
or dismemberment cases.
In unusual cases.
When period of compensation can be
definitely determined. Granted by
court upon approval of commissioner.
Employee, if security is 6 months.............. Employer may redeem liability after 9
months’ payment.
doubtful.
Either party.................. .......do................... Best interest of parties.
Mutual agreement.........
Either party.................. 6 months.............. Best interest of beneficiary.
Motion of commission
In every case except temporary disabil
ity.
Mutual agreement; or 6 mo n t h s ; any In unusual cases.
board’s motion, in
time in case of
minors.
case of permanent dis
ability of minors.
Mutual a g r e e me n t ; 6 months.............. Board may grant commutations at any
board may grant com
time if special circumstances require.
mutation.
Mutual agreement.........
Any case except death or permanent dis
ability.
Beneficiary....................
Best interest of beneficiary. In death
Mutual agreement____
and permanent disability cases con
sent of court necessary.
Motion of commission
No commutations to wholly dependent
beneficiaries.
Employer...................
In unusual cases.
Either party................
Motion of court..............
Court may authorize or approve com
promise or settlements of claims for
lump sum.
In interest of justice.
Motion of commission
Under special circumstances.
.......do............................
In interest of justice.
.......do.........................
.......do............................
Commission may in any case commute
one-fourth of value and thereafter re
duce payments proportionately.
Best interest of parties.
Either party..................
Pennsylvania...
Porto Rico.......
Rhode Island... Either party...............
South Dakota
Other conditions.
.......do........................
Mutual agreement.........
Motion of commission
6
6
months.............. Best interest of beneficiary or hardship
upon employer.
Best interest of parties.
months in total
disability cases.
Vermont.......... Either party..................
Washington___
West V irgin ia..
Beneficiary.........................
Motion of commissioner
W isco n sin ....
Motion of commission.. .
W vom ing........
6 m onths..................
In death or permanent disability cases.
Under special circumstances if deemed
advisable.
Best interest of parties.
In death or permanent disability cases.
Under special circumstances and if ad
visable.
Best interest of parties. Consent of all
parties in permanent total disability
cases.
92
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATION LAW S.
It will be noted that in 11 States1 a lapse of six months’ time is
necessary before commutations can be made. In 15 States2 the commission or court may grant lump sums on its own motion, and in two
additional States 3 this power is granted in case of minors perma
nently disabled. In three States4 commutations may be granted only
upon application of the employee or beneficiary, and in one State5
upon request of employer; while in 20 States6 lump sums may be
granted upon application of either or both parties in interest. Three
States7 make no provision for lump-sum settlements.
ACCIDENT REPORTING AND 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 were inevitable
and constituted a permanent and integral part of our industrial life.
For a number of 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
wTas 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.
Reports of accidents, also, have been incomplete and lacking in
uniformity, so that little material of a reliable nature has been avail
1 Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan. Rhode
Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
s Indiana and Massachusetts.
4 Kansas, Montana, and Washington. In Kansas the employer may redeem his liability
after six months’ payment.
5 New Hampshire
6 California, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont.
1 Alaska, Porto Rico, and Wyoming.
ACCIDENT REPORTING AND PRE VEN TIO N .
93
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. Tjhe committee on statis
tics and compensation insurance cost of the International Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions has recently issued
a report1 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 at the end of this report.
Five of the compensation acts2 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 19 States3 require all accidents to be reported,
while eight States4 require only those of one day’s disability or
1 Published in the Monthly Review, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for October, 1917,
pp. 123-143.
2 Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
3 California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Porto Rico, South Dakota, Utah, Washing
ton, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
* One day’s disability, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, and Vermont (also injuries requiring
medical attendance) ; more than one day, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and Texas.
94
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N ^ CO M PENSATIO N LAW S.
more; one1 requires those of more than two days of disability; one 2
those of more than one week; two3 require those of two weeks or
more; and four States4 provide that such accidents be reported as
are required by the commissioner or inspector. Five States5 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;
Louisiana requires accidents of two weeks’ disability or more in estab
lishments where women and children are employed; Minnesota re
quires employers engaged in industrial pursuits to report all accidents
of more than one week’s disability, and mine operators to report fatal
or serious accidents; and New Mexico requires the reporting of all
fatal accidents in mines.
In 21 States6 all employers are required to report accidents; in 11
States7 employers subject to the compensation act; in Wisconsin only
employers having four or more employees; in Wyoming only those
engaged in extraliazardous employments; while in Nebraska such re
ports of accidents shall be made as directed by the compensation com
missioner. Five States, as already noted, have no provisions in the
compensation law.
In the 30 States having administrative commissions, accidents are
required to be reported to such commissions except in two States,8 and
in these two States the compensation act is administered jointly by the
compensation commission and the department of labor. Several
States have more than one accident-reporting law, due in some in
stances to the failure to repeal the existing law when the compensa
tion act was passed. In such cases the old law is usually not en
forced. Then again in those States in which the compensation acts
require only employers subject to the acts to report accidents there
usually exist other accident-reporting laws providing that such em
ployers 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.
ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
Accident reporting and accident prevention are closely related.
In fact, effective prevention of accidents depends largely upon a
1 Pennsylvania.
2 Illinois.
8 More than two weeks, New Jersey ; two weeks or more, Rhode Island.
* Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
•Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
6 California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michi
gan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania (except
casual employments), Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
7 Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island (except public utilities), South Dakota, and Vermont.
8 Pennsylvania and Porto Rico.
SU M M A R Y COM PARISON.
95
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 by 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 30 States having the commission type
of administration, 16 1 make no provision for accident prevention
work by the compensation commission. In 6 States2 the commission
is authorized to perform some safety work, but, with the exception of
Colorado and Idaho, this power is very slight. In Colorado the com
mission has jurisdiction over all places of employment for the pur
pose of enforcing the safety statutes, but thus far (1917) the accident
prevention work has been carried on by other agencies. This leaves
only 8 States3 in which all the safety work is done by the industrial
commission. In fact, in all but two of these States4 the entire body
of labor laws is enforced by this one agency. Which system is best
adapted for effective accident-prevention work is undetermined. On
the one hand Wisconsin, with a highly centralized commission, has
done effective safety work, but, on the other hand, so also has New
Jersey, a noncommission State.
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 ad
visable to bring together briefly in tabular form a summary of the
most important features. These principal provisions include the
percentage 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 relative
compensation benefits of the several States. However, as a fair in
dication of all of the compensation benefits, four typical items or
1 Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massa
chusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
2 Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
8 California, Indiana, Montana (except mines and boilers), New York, Ohio, Utah, Ver
mont, and Wisconsin.
* California and Montana.
96
COM PARISON OF W O R K M E N 'S COM PENSATION LAW S.
injuries have been taken: (1) Death, (2) loss of major hand at the
wrist, (3) total disability for a period of 4 weeks, and (4) total
disability for a period of 13 weeks. The waiting period was de
ducted 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 $15 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 pro
vided by law. It has been assumed that the loss of the hand resulted
in a total disability of 15 weeks and a subsequent partial disability
of 50 per £ent for life. Several States have no schedules of specified
injuries, and in such States the compensation for loss of the hand
has been 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 compen
sation 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
total-disability 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 is most typical
of all States and conditions. It is admittedly true that the specific
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 considered.
For example, compensation for the death of a married man with
three children would result favorably for such States as Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, New York, and West Virginia, which pay com
pensation not only until the death or remarriage of the widow but
increase the death benefits in proportion to the number of children.
The medical benefits were not taken into consideration in computing
the money benefits for the cases cited. This provision is taken care
of in another column. In two States—Oregon and West Virginia—
10 per cent has been deducted from each of the compensation amounts.
This 10 per cent represents the employees’ contributions. In West
Virginia this is the per cent provided for by law; in Oregon each em
ployee is required to contribute 1 cent for each working day. What
SU M M A R Y COM PARISON.
97
percentage of the total amount this 1 cent a day constitutes is not
exactly known, but 10 per cent is undoubtedly a maximum estimate.
Perhaps it would seem unfair to the two States mentioned to deduct
this 10 per cent, because for individual injuries the whole amount of
compensation is received. But, on the other hand, the employees must
regularly contribute their 10 per cent, and the resultant effect will be
the same.
Again, a weekly wage of $15 results more favorably for States hav
ing a low wage level and less favorably for States having a high
weekly maximum limit. However, until the recent war wage in
creases $15 would probably most nearly typify the average wage
throughout the country as a whole.
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 ad; ” as given
in column 2 of the table, all employees in employments covered by the
compensation law are included, assuming that all employers who may
elect to come under the act have made such election. The figures,
therefore, show the maximum possible inclusions under existing law.
28941°—18------ 7
CD
COMPARISON OF BENEFITS PAID UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.
Total disability
accident.
Death.
4
weeks.
$97.50
97.50
112.82
82.50
90.00
82.50
108.00
99.00
117.00
99.00
97.50
108.00
107.25
97.50
82.50
82.50
115.71
97.50
108.00
82.50
130.00
97.50
82.50
82.50
75.00
130.00
120.00
82.50
Unlimited ,.
Unlimited
2 weeks......
Unlimited ..
8 weeks......
Maxi
mum
amt.
$100
25
150
200
100
150
100
150
30
150
2 weeks6
3 weeks.......
2 weeks...........
3 weeks
100
50
200
None2........
3 weoks.......
50
50
200
Waiting period.
Per cent
of wages.
2 Weeks; none if disability lasts 8 weeks.........................
2 weeks; none if disability lasts pver 2 weeks.... ............
10 days.........*................................... ........ *.......... *...
2 weeks..........................................................................
1 week.............„............................................................
2 Weeks......................... ....... .......................................
1 Week; none in case of partial disability.......................
1 week...........................................................................
6 working days; none if disability is totai and permanent
1
...................................1......................................
2 weeks................ ......................... „.............................
1 week-*........................................................................
2 weeks...................................- .....................................
1 Week; none if disability lasts 6 weeks..........................
2 weeks..........................................................................
2 weeks; 1if disability is permanent.............. *.............
10 days..........................................................................
2 weeks; none if disability lasts 8 weeks............... ........
1 week..........................................................................
2 weeks.............. .................................................. .......
1 week; none if disability lasts 6 weeks..........................
1 week; none if disability lasts 3 weeks..........................
2 weeks.................................................... *....................
2 weeks..**............................................. *.....................
3 weeks........ . ................ *..............................................
2 weeks; none if disability lasts over 49 days................. .
1 week...................... *........................ . . .......................
2 weeks..*............................................... ...........
50
50
65
50
50
15-60
25-60
20-55
50-65
50-55
50
50-60
65
20-50
50
50
66§
50
25-60
30-50
66§
10-661
SO
35-60
15-60
15-60§
66§
50
Weekly
maximum
aiid
minimum.
(8)
(3)
$20.83-$4.17
8.00- 5.00
14.00- 5.00
10.00- 4.00
18. CO- 2.50
12.00- 6.00
612.00- 6.00
13.20- 5.50
15.00- 6.00
15.00- 6.00
12.00- 5.00
10. 00- 3.00
10. GO- 4.00
12. GO- 5.00
14.00- 4.00
10.00- 4.00
12.00- 6.50
10. GO- 6.00
12.00- 6.00
16.16- 4.62
10.00
10.00- 5.00
10.00- 5.00
7 i5.00- 5.00
12.00- 5.00
10.00- 6.00
LAWS.
$2,640.00
$15.00
/
112.50
30.00
i *4,000.00 \
I
25.07
2,232.75
15.00
780.00
1.170.00
22.50
1.185.00
15.00
1.830.00
27.00
1,237.50
24.75
29.25
1.599.00
24.75
1,237.50
1.125.00
15.00
1,125.00
27.00
1,462.50
19.50
1,125.00
22.50
/
937.50
1 <1,593.75 \ 15.00
15.00
1,125.00
f
635.71
\ *3,135.71 \ 25.71
15.00
1,125.00
27.00
1,350.00
1,125.00
15.00
1,500.00
30.00
1.412.50
30.00
/
97.50 } 15.00
\ 41,173.75
15.00
1.222.50
7.50
825.00
20.00
2.440.00
30.00
1.640.00
15.00
1.500.00
13
weeks.
Maximum
period.
S COMPENSATION
$4,800.00
3,000.00
2,340.00
2,347.50
2.440.00
2.125.00
2.908.00
3,400.00
3,135.00
2.350.00
2.350.00
2,340.00
3,341.25
2,350.00
2.250.00
3,202.50
4,000.00
2.250.00
2,575.00
3,075.00
3,600.00
11,230.22
2,250.00
2.350.00
2.525.00
11,205.22
4.320.00
(3)
Loss of
hand.1
Rate of taoney benefits.
WORKMEN
31.2
52.4
76.2
63.1
81.9
62.9
92.6
68.7
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9
54.7
35.2
72.9
45.9
87.8
83.1
79.0
50.9
70.4
76.2
56.0
99.8
30.7
58.5
77.3
34.6
Medical service.
OF
Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California........ ........
Colorado........ ..........
Connecticut .............
Delaware..................
Hawaii.....................
Idaho.......................
Illinois......................
Indiana.. . . . . .
Iowa.........................
Kangas............ .
Kentucky.................
Louisiana...........
Maine.......................
Maryland
.
Massachusetts..
Michigan..................
Minnesota.................
Montana.. . . . . . . . . . .
Nebraska..................
Nevada .
. . .
New Hampshire.
.
New Jersey . . . . . . . .
New Mexico........ .
New York
Ohio
. . ... .
Oklahoma................
Money benefits received in typical cases.
COMPARISON
State.
Per
cent
of
em
ploy
ees
sub
ject
to act.
06
Oregon 4.......
Pennsylvania,
Porto Rico__
Rhode Island.
South Dakota
Texas. 4.........
Utah.............
Vermont id__
Washington...
West VirginiaWisconsin___
Wyoming......
United States.
88. 8
IS. 4
83.0
58.0
47.9
73.1
55.2
51.5
74.7
75.4
42.0
100.0
s 13,480.92
2.575.00
2.996.00
2. 260.00
3.000.00
3.240.00
2,732.25
1,855. ()0
10,354.20
89,156.78
3.235.00
3.000.00
12,486.34
8 1,787.89
1.312.50
1.478.00
472.50
1.612.50
1.237.50
1.350.00
1.237.60
1.162.50
1.385.00
81, 012.50
2.840.00
985.20
8.433.61
841.54
15.00
28.00
15.00
2&. 50
27.00
21.21
15.00
35.00
820.26
29.25
23.40
35.71
8 135.00
82.50
91»00
97.50
97.50
108.00
95.46
82.50
117; 00
881.00
126.75
117.00
125.71
2 weeks ; ...
Unlimited.
4 weeks. . . .
___ d o...*.,
2 weeks 6. . .
2 weeks......
Unlimited11.
90days «...
None.........
Unlimited.
250 None............................................................
25 2 weeks........................................................
N one..........................................................
2 weeks; none if disability lasts over 4 weeks
100 2 weeks; none if disability lasts for 8 weeks..
1 week..........................................................
200 10 days.......... ............................................
100 2 weeks; 1 week after July 1, 1918...............
7 days; none if disability lasts over 30 days..
i week..........................................................
1 week; none if disability lasts over 4 weeks.
10 days; none if disability lasts over 30 days.
» $66.67-93333 monthly.
(8)
10.007.0010.0012. GO15.00512.0012.50-
5.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
u 10.0(1- 5.00
15.00- 7.50
(*)
(i«)
COMPARISON*
1It is assumed that loss of hand causes decrease of 50 per cent in earning capacity.
*Employer liable foi- expenses of last siclmess ih fatal cases involving no dependents.
8No provision.
*Includes compensation for partial disability.
* Maximum
minimum increased in certain cases.
* Longer in certain eases.
TMaximum $20 for certain injuries, death basic wage $1(K) a month.
* 10 per cent deducted to cover employee's contributions.
*$15 to $50 a month. If temporary disability, amounts increased by 50 per cent; maximum 60 per cent of wages;
to Based on 1 week’s waiting period.
n Medical service furnished during disability. Employees must contribute one-half cost,
w$10 to $35 a month. If temporary disability, amounts increased by 50 per cent; maximum 60 per cent of Wages,
1* Death, $2d to $35 a month.
mIf permanently disabled, maximum $8, minimum 54.
» Lump sum; $15 to $35 a month if temporarily disabled,
(9)
15-60
75
50
50
60
55
15-50
(12)
is 50
65
(15)
1(M)6§
SUMMARY
4*. ?
CD
100
COMPARISON OF W O R K M E N S COM PENSATIO N LAW S.
The following table shows the most advantageous and the least
advantageous compensation provisions, from the viewpoint of the
employee, in the various States:
EXTREMES OF LIBERALITY IN THE COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF THE VARIOUS
STATES.
Most advantageous provisions.
Nature of provisions.
State.
Percentage of employees covered...
Compensation for death..................
Compensation for loss of hand........
Compensation for 4 weeks’ disa
bility.
Compensation for 13 weeks’ disa
bility.
Medical service...............................
Amount or
percentage.
State.
Amount or per-
New Jersey..
Oregon........
Alaska........
Oregon........
99.8 per cent.
Porto Rico.. 18.4 per cent.
(Oklahoma .. None.
$13,480.92..... \Vermont___
$1,855.
$2,640.......... . Colorado___ $780.
$41.54.......... . New Mexico $7.50.
..... do*......
$135.
{
California..........
Connecticut...... |Unlimited__
Idaho................ None............
fOregon.............. .......do...........
\Porto Rico........75 per cent...
Per cent of wages1..........................
.. do..............
W eekly maximum compensation1.. California.
$20.83...
[Illinois.......
$$-$7.50.
$6.50....
Weekly minimum compensation... •{Minnesota..
[Utah.........
$5-.$7....
Waiting period...............................
Least advantageous provisions.
---- do.........
$75.
Wyoming... None.
^Nfew Mexico
7Vermont__
\Louisfana...
{Colorado___
\Porto Rico..
3 weeks.
15 to 50 per cent.
25 to 50 per cent.
$8.
$7.
Hawaii........ $2.50.
1 Oregon and Washington pay a stipulated monthly pension which may be increased to 60 per cent of
employee’s wages,
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 wiH. 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 uniform laws,
just and certain in their operations, and not dependent for their
acceptance on the personal views or interests o f individuals or groups
of individuals.
The following State law differentials were compnted by the actu
arial committee of the National Workmen’s Compensation Service
Bureau for 28 compensation laws, as amended down to and including
January 1, 1918.1 These differentials show the relative value of the
combined benefits for each of the several compensation laws. The
original Massachusetts law of 1912 is used as a standard, the cost of
compensation under this act being taken as unity. The last column
in the table shows the percentage of employees covered by the act
in each State, as computed by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
STATE LAW DIFFERENTIA1
A.ND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY
VARI DUS COMPENSATION LAWS.
State.
Per cent of
Law
differential. employees
covered.
Connecticut.............................................................................................. ............
Delaware..............................................................................................................
Idaho...................................................................................................................
1.70
1.09
1.35
.90
1.38
76.2
63.1
81.9
62.9
68. f
Illinois..................................................................................................................
Indiana.....................................................................................1..........................
Iowa. ...................................................................................................................
Kansas^-...............................................................................................................
Kentucky.............................................................................................................
1.49
1.36
1.29
1.43
1.44
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9
54.7
Louisiana..............................................................................................................
Maine....................................................................................................................
Maryland..............................................................................................................
Mi'hi^aa...............................................................................................................
Minnesota.............................................................................................................
1.13
1.02
1.33
1.04
1.35
35.2
72.9
45.9
83.1
79.0
Montana................................................................................................................
Nebraska...............................................................................................................
New Jersey......................................................................................f. ...................
Now Mexico.................... .....................................................................................
New York................ ...........................................................................................
1.01
1.48
.97
.95
1.91
50.9
70.4
99.8
30.7
58.5
Oklahoma...................................................................... ......................................
Pennsylvania........................................................................................................
Rhode Island........................................................................................................
South Dakota....................... ...............................................................................
Texas.................................... ...............................................................................
1.20
1.05
1.25
1.18
1.50
34.6
88.8
83.0
58.0
47.9
Utah.......................................................................................... ..........................
1.30
.94
1.69
73.1
55.2
75.4
California...................................... .......................................................................
Wisconsin............................. ........................ .......................................... ........
1 Report of the work of the augmented standing committee on workmen’s compensation insurance rates
1917; together with a brief account of the history and theory of the making of workmen’s compensation
insurance rates. Issued by the National Workmen’s Compensation Service Bureau, March, 1918.
101
PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF LAWS RELATING TO WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.
[Chart Revised Dec. 31, 1917.]
Insurance.
State.
By employee.
By employer.
Public.
Private.
Alaska. Ch. 71. Approved
Apr. 29, 1915. In effect
July 28, 1915. Amended,
ch. 44,1917.
Elective, as to mining operations No provision.
Not required.
Arizona. Ch. 14 (extra ses
sion). Approved June 8,
1912. In effect Sept. 1,
1912. New act, ch. 7,1913.
Compulsory, as to “ especially No provision.
Not required.
„___ ________ ___
Ap
proved Apr. 8, 1911. In
Effect Sept. 1, 1911. New
act, ch. 176,1913. Amend
ed, chs. 541, 607, 662, 1915.
New act, ch. 586, 1917. In
cffect Jan. 1,1918.
Compulsory, as to all employments
Colorado.
Ch. 179.
Ap
proved Apr. 10, 1915. In
effect Aug. 1,1915. Amend
ed, ch. 155,1917.
Elective, as to all employments ex
Presumed in absence Presumed in absenco
of written notice
of witten notice
served on employer
filed with United
States commissioner.
and f i l e d w i t h
United States com
missioner.
having 5 or more employees.
Defenses abrogated if
employer does not If both employer and
elect.
employee come un
der act.
If employer elects but
employee rejects.
Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
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
saffty laws.
Compulsory, as to all
Connecticut. Ch. 138. Ap
proved May 29, 1913. In
effect Jan. 1,1914. Amend
ed, ch. 288, 1915; 126, 368,
1917.
Employers must in
employees e x c e p t
sure in the State
deputy clerks, dep , fund or private com
uty sheriffs, and
panies, or provide
deputy constables
self-insurance.
serving without re
muneration.
Special contracts.
Injuries covered.
Waiting period.
Waivers forbidden___ Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks. None if dis
ability continues
ing out of and in the course of
for 8 weeks or more.
employment unless directly due
to intoxication or willful inten
tion to injure self or another.
Total disability.
(a) Permanent.
(b) Temporary.
(a) $3,000 to widow or minor or
phan; $600 to each child under
16 and to dependent parents;
maximum, $6,000. If single,
$1,200 to each dependent parent.
(V $150 maximum for burial ex
penses; $150 for other expenses
between accident and death.
(a) $3,600; $1,200 additional if wife
and $6@0 for each child under 16.
If single, $600 for each dependent
parent; maximum, $6,000. (&)
50 per cent of wages during disa
bility; maximum, 6 months.
No prevision.
Death, 200 weeks’ earn (a) 2,400 timts one-half average
ings, payable as court
daily wages; maximum, $4,000.
may order. Disability,
(b) Reasonable medical and
burial expenses.
during its continuance.
(a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during
Maximum, $20.83. Mini
mum, $4.17.
Death, 240 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
life. Temporary disabil
ity, 240 weeks.
3 years’ annual earnings; max
imum, $5,000; minimum, $1,000.
(6) Reasonable burial expenses;
maximum, $100.
(a) 65 per cent of wages for 240
weeks, then 40 per cent for life.
(b) 65 per cent of wages during
disability; not over 240 weeks
nor over 3 times annual earnings.
50 per cent..........
Maximum, $8.
Mini
mum, $5 or actual wages
if less than $5.
Death, 6 years. Perma
nent total disability,
life. Temporary total
and partial disability,
during its continuance.
53 per cent.
Maximum, $14.
mum, $5.
50 per cent for tempo
rary total disability.
Fixed lump sums m
other cases.
Personal injuries by accident 2 weeks. None if dis 50 per cent.
ability co n tin u e )
arising out of and in the course
longer than 2 weeks.
of employment due 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 with
any law.
65 per cent.
Waivers forbidden___ Personal injuries arising out of 10 days..
and in the course of employment
unless due to intoxication or in
tentionally self-inflicted. Occu
pational diseases specifically in
cluded.
2 weeks.,
Compulsory, as to all Electing employers Presumed in absence
employees e x c e p t
of mitten notice to
must insure in State
cept those having regularly less
elective officials and
commission; notice
fund or private
than 4 employees, farm labor,
members
of
National
of acceptance or re
companies,
or
pro
domestic service, casual employ
jection to be posted.
Guard.
vide self-insurance.
ees, and those not in usual course
of employer’s business. Volun
tary, as to excepted employ
ments.
Elective, as to all employments ex Elective, as to the State Electing employers Presumed in absence
of bitten notice.
and all public cor
must insure in pri
cept those having regularly less
porations h a v i n g
vate companies, or
than 5 employees, outworkers,
regularly 5 or more
provide self-insur
and casual employees. Volun
ance.
employees. Volun
tary, as to excepted employ
tary, as to others.
ments.
Presumed in absence
of written notico to
employer.
Assumed risk due to Employers insuring in Defenses remain, in
cluding assumed
State fund not en
employer’s negli
risk.
titled to benefits of
gence, fellow service,
act if in arrears on
and contributory
insurance premiums.
negligence unless
willful.
Act is exclusive where
available. Hospital
fund may be main
tained.
Presumed in absence
of written notice.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
service, and contributorynegligence.
Presumed in absence
of printed notice to
employees and filed
with board.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and filed
with board.
Approved
schemes Personal injuries arising out of and 1 week..
may be substituted
in course of employment unless
if benefits e q u a l
due to willful and serious mis
those of act. Physi
conduct or intoxication. (Oc
cally defective em
cupational diseases excluded by
court.)
ployees may waive
right to compensa
tion.
Approved substitute Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks.....................
ing out of and in course of em
schemes permitted
ployment, unless due to willful
if benefits equal
intention to injure self or an
those of act. Waiv
other, intoxication, failure to
ers forbidden.
use safeguards, violation of law,
reckless indifference to danger,
or caused by third party for
personal reasons. Occupational
diseases specifically excluded.
Personal injuries Dy accident 1 week. None in case
Waivers forbidden
of partial disability.
arising out of and in course of
employment unless due to will
ful intention to injure self or an
other or to intoxication. Occu
pational diseases specifically in
cluded.
Electing employers
must insure In pri
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
ance.
Death.
Per cent of wages.
Permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
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.
hazardous” employments enu
merated. Voluntary, as to other
employments.
except farm labor, domestic
service, and casual employees
not in usual course of employer’s
business. Voluntary, as to ex
cepted employments.
Compensation benefits.
Suits for damages.
How election is made.
Employments covercd.
Defenses remain.
(a) Dependents.
(b) No dependents.
Maximum period.
No provision..................... Temporary total disabil
ity, 6 months.
Mini-
disability; maximum, $4,000.
(a) 50 per cent of wages; weekly (a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during
maximum $8, for 6 years; total
not over $2,500or less than $1,000.
(b) Reasonable burial expenses;
maximum, $75.
disability; weekly maximum.
$8; minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
Death, 312 weeks. Total (a) Burial expenses, $109; 50 per
cent of wages for 312 weeks;
disability. 520 weeks.
weekly maximum, $14; mini
Partial disability, 312
weeks.
mum, $5. (6) Burial expenses,
(a) (b) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 520 weeks;
weekly maximum, $14; mini
mum, $5.
$ 100.
Permanent total disabil (a) Expenses of burial and last (a) (6) 50 per cent of wages for 270
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
sickness, maximum, $100; 25to 60
ity, life. Others, 270
minimum, $4, or actual wages if
weeks.
per cent of wages to widow or de
less than $4; thereafter 20 per
pendent widower for 270 weeks:
cent of wages for life; weekly
weekly basic wage, maximum,
maximum, $6; minimum, $2, or
$20; minimum, $8. (6) Expen
actual wage?, if less than $2; total
ses of burial and last sickness,
not
over $4,000. Compensation
maximum, $100.
ceases on termination of dis
ability.
(a) Burial expenses, $100; 25 to 60 (a) (b) 60 per cent of wages during
Death, 25 to 60 per Death: Basic wage, maxi 312 weeks.
disability, not over 312 weeks;
mum, $36; minimum,
per cent of wages for 312 weeks;
cent. Total disa
weekly maximum, $18; mini
$5.
Total disability:
basic weekly wage, maximum,
bility, 60 per cent.
mum, $3, or actual wages if less
Maximum, $18; mini
$36; minimum, $5; total, not
Partial disability,
than $3 in case of temporary dis
mum, $3, or actual
over $5,000.
(6) Burial ex
50 per cent.
ability; total not over $5,000.
penses, $100.
wages if less than $3 in
case of temporary disa
bility.
Partial disa
bility: Maximum, $12.
Death, 20 to 55 per Death and temporary to Death, 400 weeks. Per (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 55 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum $12;
tal disability: Maxi
manent total disability,
cent. Disability, 55
$100; 45 to 55 per cent of wages
minimum $6; thereafter $6 a
mum $12, minimum $6,
life. Temporary total
per cent.
to widow or dependent widower
week for life.
or a«tual wages if less
disability, 400 weeks.
for 400 weeks; weekly maxi
(o)
55 per cent of wages during dis
than $6; others, maxi
Partial disability, 150
mum $12; minimum $6, or ac
ability; maximum, 400 weeks;
weeks.
mum $12, minimum $6.
tual wages if less than $6. (b)
weekly
maximum $12; mini,
Burial expenses, maximum
mum, $6, or actual wages if less
$100; also $1,000 to be paid into
than
$
0
.
industrial administration fund.
Death, 15 to 60 per Death: Weekly basicwage,
maximum, $20; mini
cent. Disability, 50
mum, $8. Disability:
per cent.
Maximum, $10; mini
mum, $4, or actual
wages if less than $4.
Delaware. Ch. 233. Ap
proved Apr. 2, 1917. In
effect Jan. 1,1918.
Elective, as to all employments ex Excluded............
Hawaii.
No. 221.
Ap
proved Apr. 28, 1915. In
effect July 1,1915. Amend
ed, ch. 227, 1917.
Compulsory, as to all industrial
Idaho. Ch. 81. Approved
Mar. 16. 1917. In effect
Jan. 1,1918.
Compulsory, as to all employments Compulsory, as to all Employers must in
Not permitted..
conducted for gain except farm
labor, domestic service, out
workers, casual employment,
charitable institutions, and em
ployees receiving over $2,400 a
year. Voluntary, as to excepted
employments.
employees except
officials, and those
receiving a salary
over $2,400.
sure in Statsfund or
provide slf-insurance.
Approved substitute
schemes permitted if
benefits equal those
of act; waivers for
bidden.
Illinois. P. 314. Approved
June 10, 1911. In effect
May 1, 1912. New act, p.
335,1913. Amended, 1915;
May 31 and June 25,1917.
Compulsory, as to “ extrahazard-
Compulsory, as to all
Employeis aust in
sure m privite com
panies, or provide
self-insuraite.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Approved sch o m e s Accidental injuries arising out of
and in course of employment.
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
No waiver of pro
visions of act as to
amount of compen
sation without ap
proval of board.
Six working days;
compensation be
gins on eighth day,
but if disability is
total and perma
nent, then on day
after injury.
Disability, 50 to 65 per
cent.
Indiana. Ch. 106. Approved
Mar. 8, 1915. In effect
Sept. 1, 1915. Amended,
chs. 63,81,165,1917.
Elective, as to all employments
Compulsory, as to all Electing
Permitted if employer Defenses remain..
foils to insure risk.
1 week.
Total disability and Death: Maximum, $12;
minimum, $5.
Total
pedfied injuries, 55
disability: Maximum,
per cent. Others,
$13.20; minimum, $5.50.
50 per cent.
Partial disability: Basic
wage, maximum, $24;
minimum, $10.
Death and partial disabil (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) (6) 55 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 500 weeks;
$100; 50 per cent of wages for 300
ity, 300 weeks. Total
weekly maximum $13.20; miniweeks; weekly maximum $12;
disability, 530 weeks.
mum 15.50; total not over $5,000.
minimum $5, total not to exceed
$5,000. (b) Burial expenses,
maximum $100.
Iowa. Ch. 147. Approved
Mar. 18, 1913. In effect
July 1, 1914. Amended,
chs. 67, 188, 270, 336, 403,
409, 418, 1917.
Elective, as to all employments
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment unless due to willful
misconduct, including inten
tional self-inflicted injury, in
toxication, and willful failure to
use safety appliances, or obey
safety laws. Occupational dis
eases specifically excepted.
Personal
injuries arising out of and
Approved s ch e m e s
in course of employment, unless
permitted, but no
due to willful intention to injure
reduction of liability
self or another, intoxication, or
allowed. All other
willful act of a third party.
waivers forbidden.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally excluded.
2 weeks.
50 per cent.................. Death: Maximum, $10;
minimum, $5.
Disa
bility: Maximum, $15;
minimum, $6. or actual
wages if less than $6.
Death and temporary to
tal disability, 300 weeks.
Permanent total disa
bility, 400 weeks.
Kansas.
Ch. 218. Ap
proved Mar. 14, 1911. In
effect Jan. 1,1912. Amend
ed, ch. 216, 1913; ch: 226,
1917.
Elective, as to “ especially danger
Electing employers Presumed in absence Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer Defenses remain ex
fails to insure risk.
cept assumed risk
of written notice to
must insuiB in pri
service, and con
of notice posted in
employees except
if employer violates
vate compmies,
employer and in
tributory negligence
establishment and
firemen and police
safety statutes; no
provide alf-insurd u stria l commis
filed with industrial
unless willful and
men in pension
presumption of em
commissioner.
sioner.
ance.
with intent to cause
funds (city school
ployer’s negligence.
injury, or due to
teachers exempted
intoxication.
by ruling of commis
sioner).
Defenses remain un Approved s ch e m e s
Presumed in absence Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
Elective, as to work- Not required.
less injury is caused
of written notice
of notice posted in
service, and con
■men on county and
permitted if benefits
by willful negligence equal those of act.
filed with employer
establishment and
tributory neglig ?nce,
municipal work.
of employer.
and secretary of
filed with secretary
of state.
state.
1 week..
Disability, 60 per cent. Disability: Maximum, $15;
m in im u m , $6.
Specified injuries, 50
per cent.
Death, 3 years’ earnings, (a) 3 years’ earnings; maximum.
$3,800; minimum, $1,400. (b)
payable as court may
Burial expenses, maximum,
order.
Disability, 8
$150.
years.
2 weeks.
05 per cent............
1 week. None if disa
bility continues for
6 weeks or more.
Death, 25 to 50 per Death and permanent to
tal disability: Maxicent. Disability 50
imum, $10; minimum,
percent.
$3. Partial disability:
Maximum, $10. Tem
porary total disability
and specified injuries:
Maximum, $10; mini
mum, $3, or a c t u a l
wages if less than $3.
Kentucky. Approved Mar.
23, 1916. In effect Aug. 1,
1916.
Louisiana.
No. 20.
Ap
proved June 18, 1914. in
effect Jan. 1,1915. Amend
ed, Nos. 243, 270,1916.
Maine. Ch. 295. Approved
Apr. 1, 1915. In effect
Jan. 1, 1916. Amended,
chs. 230, 241,1917.
cept those having less than 5 em
ployees, farm labor, domestic
service, outworkers, and casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business.
employments carried on for gain,
except casual employees, those
not in usual course of employer’s
business, and those receiving
more than $36 a week from any
one employer.
ous” employments enumerated;
farm labor, and persons not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness excepted. Voluntary, as to
oxcepted employments.
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual laborers, and rail
road employees engaged in train
service. Voluntary, as to ex
cepted 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.
ous” employments enumerated
conducted for gain except those
having less than 5 employees,
farm labor, and those not in
usual course of employer’s busi
ness; all mines covered. Volun
tary, as to excepted employ
ments.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept those having less than 5
employees, farm labor and do
mestic service. Voluntary, as
to cxcepted employments.
Elective, as to “ hazardous” em
ployments enumerated, or as
agreed upon or determined by
court, except employments not
conducted for purpose of em
ployer’s business.
Voluntary,
as to other employments.
Elective, as to all employments, ex
cept those having regularly less
tlian 6 e m p lo y y e s, fa r m la b o r ,
domestic sarvi.ee, logging opera
tions, casual employees, and
those not in usual course of em
ployer’s business. Voluntary, as
to exempted employees.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
service, and con
Defenses abrogated.
tributory negligence.
Personal injuries accidentally sus
tained arising out of and in the
course of employment, unless
intentionally inflicted by self or
another.
Maximum and minimum
weekly compensation
payments.
Defenses r e m a i n .
Suits not permitted
if injury due to will
ful intention to in
jur# self or another,
intoxication, willful
faifere to use safe
guards, violation of
Ijjf* or reckless in
ference to danger.
Not permitted............ I...,
Compulsory, as to all Employers must in
employees • except
elective officials or
employees receiving
more than $1,800 a
year.
employees
officials.
except
sure in prime com
panies, or provide
self-insurame.
employers Presumed in absence
must insuffi in pri
of written notice,
vate compmies, or
posted or served,
provide self-insurand filed with in
ance.
dustrial board.
employees.
Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow
of written notice
service, and con
served on employer
tributory negligence,
and filed with in
dustrial board.
Compulsory, as to all
Elective, as to ail mu Electing
nicipal corporations
having 5 or more
employees. Volun
tary, as to others.
,employers
must insurtin Ken
tucky- Employees’
Insurance Associa
tion or otha private
companies, or pro
vide self-insirance.
Compulsory, as to all Not required*
employees except of
ficials.
Compulsory, as to all Electing
employees of State,
counties, and cities,
except officials. Vol
untary, as to towns.
cnfployers
isurdin. pri*
must insi
.
Vttto COinpriaUrf* or
provide sclf-insurance.
By writing filed with
the commission and
)osted in the estabishment.
By signed notice filed
with employer.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if injury is Defenses remain.,
due to deliberate in
service, and con
tention of employer,
tributory negligence.
unlawful e m p lo y ment of minors, or
failure 'to file evi
dence as to insur
ance.
Presumed in absenco
of written notice to
employee.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
utory negligence.
{
Writing filed w i t h
commission a n d
posted in establish
ment.
Presumed, if employer Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
service, and contrib
elects, in absence of
utory negligence.
written notico to
employer filed with
commission.
Maryland. Ch. 800.
Ap Compulsory, as to “ extrahazardous” employments enumeiated
proved Apr. 16, 1914. In
conducted for gain; act does not
effect Nov. 1,1914. Amend
apply to farm labor, domestic
ed, chs. 86, 368, 379, 597,
service, country blacksmiths,
1916.
wheelwrights, or similar rural
employments, casual employ
ees, and those receiving over
$2,009 a year. Voluntary, as to
nonhazardous employments.
Massachusetts. Ch. 751. Ap Elective, as to all employments, ex
cept farm labor, domestic serv
proved July 28, 1911. In
cffect July 1,1912. Amend
ice, and persons not in usual
ed, chs. 571, 1912; 696, 746,
course of employer’s businoss.
Voluntary, as to excepted em
1913; 338, 708,1914; 123, 275,
ployments.
314, 1915; 72, 90, 200, 307,
1916; 198, 249, 269, 297, 1917.
Compulsory, as to all
Michigan. No. 10. Approved Elective, as to all employments, ex
Mar. 20, 1912. In effect
cept farm labor, domestic serv
Sept. 1, 1912. Amended,
ice, casual employees, and those
Nos. 60, 79, 156, 259, 1913;
not in usual course of employer’s
104, 153, 170, 171, 1915; 41,
business.
206, 249,1917.
Compulsory, as to all Electing
Writing filed with in Presumed in absence
of written notice, if
dustrial a c c id e n t
employer elects.
board.
workmen employed
for wages and en
gaged in extrahaza r d o u s employ
ments. Voluntary,
as to other employ
ments.
employees,
officials.
except
Waivers forbidden;
employers must in
sure.
Personal inj uries arising out of and
in course of employment, unless
due to serious and willful mis
conduct. (Occupational diseases
included by decision of court.)
10 days....
66§ per cent..
Total disability: Maxi
mum, $14; minimum,
$4. Others: Maximum,
$10; minimum, $4.
500 weeks..
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
is in default on in
service, and contrib
surance premiums.
utory negligence.
Defenses remain.,
Existing schemes may
bo continued,, but
no reduction m lia
bility a l l o w e d ;
waivers forbidden.
Personal injuries arising out of and
in course of employment, unless
due to intentional and willful
misconduct. (Occupational dis
eases excluded by court.)
2 weeks. None if dis £0 per cent.
ability continues 8
weeks or more.
Maximum,
mum, $4.
Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.,
service, and contrib
utory
negligence
unless willful.
Defenses remain..
Employer may insure
or maintain fund,
but may not reduce
liability fixed by
law.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment, unless intentionally
self-inflicted, due to intoxica
tion, or caused by fellow em
ployee for personal reason. (Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
implication.)
1 week..
Defenses remain.........
Waivers forbidden;
hospital fund may
be maintained.
Injuries from fortuitous event aris 2 weeks.
ing out of and in course of em
ployment. Occupational dis
eases specifically excluded.
M ontana. Ch. S6. A p
proved Mar. 8, 1915. In
effect July 1,1915.
Elective, as to “ inherently hazard
Compulsory, as to all Electing employers
Writing filed with
board and posted in
establishment.
Presumed in absenca Assumed risk, fellow
service, and contrib
of written notice to
utory negligenco
employer and filed
unless willful.
with board.
Nebraska. Ch. 198. Ap
proved Apr. 21, 1913. In
effect Dec. 1,1914. Amend
ed/ch. 85,1917.
Elective, as to all employments ex
Nevada. Ch 183. Approved
Mar. 24,1911. In effect July
1, 1911. New act, ch. Ill,
1913. Amended, ch. 190,
1915; 233, 1917.
Elective, as to all employments ex
cept farm labor, domestic serv
ice, outworkers, casual employ
ees, and those not employed for
employer’s business or profit.
Voluntary, as to cxcepted em
ployments.
cept farm labor and domestic
service.
employees, except
officials.
Compulsory, as to all
employees, includ
ing those of public
contractors.
New Hampshire. Ch. 163. Elective, as to “ dangerous” em No provision.,
ployments enumerated, except
Approved Apr. 15,1911. In
factories or shops having less
effect Jan. 1,1912.
than 5 employees engaged in
manual or mechanical labor; ap
plies only to “ workmen.”
New Jersey. Ch. 95. Ap Elective, as to all employments ex Compulsory, as to all
employees, except
proved Apr. 4,1911. In ef
cept casual employees.
fect July 4,1911. Amended,
elective officials or
ch. 174, 1913; 244, 1914; 54,
those receiving a sal
1916; 178, 262, 1917.
ary over $1,200.
New Mexico. Ch. 83. Ap
proved Mar. 13, 1917. In
cffect Juno 8,1917.
Elective, as to “ extrahazardous”
employments conducted for
gain except those having less
that 4 employees, and casual
employees not in usual course of
employer’s business; numerical
exception does not apply to
structural work 10 feet above
ground. Voluntary, as to non
hazardous employments.
New York. Ch. 816. Ap Compulsory, as to enumerated
“ hazardous” employments con
proved Dec. 16. 1913. In
ducted for gain; farm labor and
effect July 1,1914. Amend
domestic service specifically
ed, chs. 41, 316, 1914; 167,
excluded. Voluntary, as to other
168, 615, 674,1915; 622,1916;
employments.
705, 1917.
Presumed in absence
must insure in pri
of notice posted in
establishment and
vate companies, or
provide self-insur
filed with compen
ance.
s a tion com m is
sioner.
Compulsory, as to all Electing employers
No j rovislon..............
Electing employers
must insure m State
fund.
Electing employers
must give proof of
financial ability or
file a bond.
All employers mustinsure in private com
panies, or provide
F3lf-insurance. Em
ployer:: of farmlabor
and dome$ic serv
ice exempted.
Electing employers
must msurt in pri
vate compmies or
provido self-insur
ance.
Writing filed with
commission; notice
of rejection to be
posted in establish
ment.
Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer Defenses remain...
fails to insure risk.
service, and contrib
of notice to employer
Defenses abrogated.
utory negligence un
and filed with com
less willful or due to
pensation commis
intoxication.
sioner.
Presumed in absence
of notice to employ
er and filed with
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 cx
cept assumed risk
due to employer’s
violation or safety
laws; no presump
tion of employer’s
ncgligence.
Existing schemes may Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
be continued if bene
ployment, unless duo to willful
fits equal those of
negligence (deliberate and reck
act. Waivers for
less indifference to safety or in
bidden.
toxication). Occupational dis
eases specifically excluded.
Waivers forb id d en .
Hospital fund may
be maintained.
Personal injuries £y accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, or sustained while intoxi
cated.
Permitted i f employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Employers nust in
sure in Site fund
or providl self-in
surance.
Permitted if injury is
due to willful act of
employer, violation
of safety laws, or de
fault on insuranco
p r e m iu m s . De
fenses abrogated.
Waivers forbidden.
Oklahoma. Ch. 246. Ap
proved Mar. 22, 1915. In
effect Sept. 1,1915.
Compulsory, as to “ hazardous”
Compulsory, as to all
Employers nust in
sure in prrfete com
panies or provide
self-insurace.
Permitted if employer
fails to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
Approved schemes per Accidental personal injuries aris 2 weeks.
ing out of and in course of em
mitted. Waivers for
ployment, unless duo to willful
bidden.
intention to injuro self or an
other, intoxication, or willful
failuro to uso statutory safe
guards. Fatal accidents ex
cluded.
Oregon. Ch. 112. Approved
Feb. 25, 1913. In effect
July 1, 1913. Compensa
tion and insurance provi
sions effective July 1,1914.
Amended, ch. 271, 1915;
288,1917.
Elective, as to enumerated “ haz Elective, as to all em E le c tin g employers Presumed in hazard Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if injury is Defensesremain; prior
Pennsylvania. No. 338. Ap
proved June 2,1915. In ef
fect Jan. 1,1916. Amended,
chs. 57, 359, 395, 1917.
Elective, as to all employments
employments (enumerated list
and general clause) conducted
for gain except those having less
than 3 employees, farm labor,
retail stores, and employees not
engaged in manual or mechan
ical work.
ardous” employments except
farm labor. Voluntary, as to
excepted employment.
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees not
in usual course of employer’s
business, and outworkers.
must insun in State
fund.
ployees.
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.
South Dakota. Ch. 376. Ap Elective, as to all employments
proved Mar. 10, 1917. In
except farm labor, domestic
service, casual laborers not in
effect June 1,1917.
usual course of employer’s busi
ness . Voluntary, as to excepted
employments.
of witten notice, if
employer elects.
service, and contribu tory negligence,
cxcept willful and
with purpose of selfinjury.
due to willful act of
employer or default
on insuranco pre
miums. Defenses
abrogated.
employees, includ
ing public contrac
tors.
as to
employees of State;
elective, as to em
ployees of cities and
towns, except fire
and police depart
ments.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if injury is Defenses remain..
service, and con
caused by willfulact
tributory ncgligence.
or criminal ncgligenco of employer.
No provision..
Electing employers Writing filed with
commissioner of in
must insui in pri
dustrial statistics.
vato compmies or
provide silf-insurancc.
Presumed in absenco
of witten notice, if
employer olocts.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
service, and con
fails to insure risk.
tributory negligence,
Defenses remain..
Approved schom es
may be substituted
if benefits equal
those of act. Waiv
ers forbidden.
Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer
scrvice, and con
fails to insure risk.
tributory ncgligence.
Defenses remain..
Approved substitute
schemes permitted;
waivers forbidden.
Assumed risk, fellow
service, and con
tributory negligenco
unless willful or due
to intoxication.
Defenses remain.
of witten notico to
employees and filed
with commissioner.
of witten notico to
employer and filed
witn commissioner.
Electing employers By subscribing to
State association or
must insurein Texas
insuring in other
Employer’s, Insur
company and noti
ance Association or
fying employees.
other privato com
panies.
Presumed in absence
of witten notico to
employer.
service, and con
tributory negligenco
unless due to intoxi
cation or reckless
indifference. Abro
gation of defenses is
absolute and does
not depend upon re
jection of act.
fails to insure risk.
Elective. as to all employments ex No provision.
Utah. Ch. 100. Approved
Mar. 15, 1917. In effect
July 1,1917.
Compulsory, as to allemployments
Vermont. Ch. 164. Ap
proved Apr. 1, 1915. In
effect July 1,1915; ch. 173,
174, 175, 176,1917.
Elective, as to all employments Elective, as to all em Electing
Washington. Ch. *74. Ap
proved Mar. 14, 1911. In
effect Oct. 1,1911. Amend
ed, ch. 148, 1913; ch. 188,
1915; 28, 120, 1917.
Compulsory, as to ^extrahazard-
West Virginia. Ch. 10. Ap
proved Feb. 22, 1913. In
effect Oct. 1,1913. Amend
ed Feb. 20, Mar. 13,1915.
Elective, as to all regular privato No provision.............
Wisconsin. Ch. 50. Ap
proved May 3, 1911. In
effect same date. Amend
ed, chs. 599, 707, 1913; 121,
241, 316, 369, 378, 462,1915;
624, 637, 1917.
Elective, as to all employments ex
Compulsory, as to all Electing
employees except of
ficials.
employers
must insure in pri
vate companies or
provide self-insur
ance.
Presumed as to em Presumed in absence Assumed risk; also fel Not permitted.
ployers of 3 or more
low service, and conof written notice to
persons in absenco
tri butory negligence
employer, if em
of notice filed with
unless willful, if 3 or
ployer elects.
commission.
more
employees.
(Does not apply to
farm labor.)
Wyoming. Ch. 124. Ap
proved Feb. 27, 1915. In
effect Apr. 1,1915. Amend
ed, ch. 69,1917.
Compulsory, as to “ extrahazard-
Compulsory, as to all
Employers must in
sure in State fund.
United States. 35 Stat.,
556. Approved May 30,
1908. In effect Aug. 1,1908.
Amended, chs. 57, 255, 390,
1911-12. New act, No. 267,
approved Sept. 7,1916. In
effect same date.
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 employments.
ous” employments, including
enumerated list. Voluntary, as
to employments not “ cxtrahazardous.”
ployees of cities,
towns and incorpo
rated villages, ex
cept officials elected
or receiving more
than $2,000 a year.
cept those having less than 3 em
ployees,3 farm labor, and em
plovees not in usual course of
employer’s business. Voluntary,
as to steam railroads.
ous” employments enumerated
conducted for gain, except those
having less than 3 employees,
casual employees not in usual
course of employer’s business,
clerical employees not subject to
hazard of employment, and offi
cials; numerical exception does
not apply to “ extrahazardous”
employments where explosives
are usad and to structural work
10 feet above ground.
Compulsory, as to all employees of
Panama Railroad.
Employers must in
sure in Stato fund or
private companies
or provide self-in
surance.
employers
must insure in pri
vate compames or
provide seif-insurance.
employees in “ extrahazardous” work in
which workmen are
employed for wages,
Voluntary, as to em
ployments not “ extrahazardous.”
employees in “ extrahazardous” work in
which workmen ar3
employed for wages,
except employees
who are otherwise
provided for.
Compulsory, as to all
civil employees.
Suit for excess dam
ages permitted, in
addition to compen
sation, if injury re
sulted from deliber
ate intention of em
ployer.
sure in State fund.
Electing employers
muit insurein Stato
fund or provide selfinsurance.
Permitted against em
ployer accepting in
surance system if
his willful or gross
negligence causes
death; damages, in
addition to compen
sation, if employer
charges part of in
surance premium
against employee.
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 must
bo
proved; and (3) if
injury is due to em
ployer’s willful mis
conduct.
absolute.
Presumedin absence of Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted............ Defenses remain..
written agreement
service, and contrib
of witten agree
or notitee to em
utory negligence.
ment or notice to
ployees and board;
e m p l o y e r s and
municipalities vote.
board.
Compulsory, as to all Employers muit in
employments conducted for
gain, except farm labor, domes
tic service, temporary employ
ments, casual employees, travel
ing salesmen, and officers of cor
porations. Voluntary, as to tem
porary employments.
2S9410—18. (To follow page 101.)
Compulsory, as to ill
employees, except
elective officials or
those receiving
salary over $2,400.
Personal Injuries by accident in
courso of employment while ac
tually engaged in furtherance of
employer’s business, unless in
tentionally self-inflicted, or duo
to intentional act of third party
for reasons not connected witn
the employment.
Presumed in absenco
of written notico to
employer and filed
with commission.
must insurj in pri
vate compinies or
provido sflf-insur-
cept those 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.
Waivers forbidden__
Presumed in absence
of written notico
filed with commis-
Compulsory, as to all Electing employers Presumed in absenco Presumed in absenco
employees.
Personal injuries by accident None..
caused by violent or external
.means arising out of and in
courso of employment, unless
duo to deliberate Intention to in
jure self. Occupational diseases
excluded by implication.
of written notice to
employer and filed
with compensation
bureau.
Electing
. „
must insulin Stato
fund.
Compulsory,
Waivers forbidden.
of notico posted in
establishment, given
employee, and filed
with compensation
bureau.
must insuij in State
fund or prijate com
panies, oil provide
sclf-insura&e.
Texas. Ch. 179. Approved
Apr. 16, 1913. In effect
Sept. 1, 1913. Amended,
ch. 103,1917.
except those having less than 4
employees, farm labor, domestic
service, casual employees, and
those not in usual course of em
ployer’s business. Voluntary, as
to employers having less than 4
employees.
law abrogated as
sumed risk and fel
low service; contrib
utory negligenco to
be measured.
Compulsory, as to all E le ctin g employers Presumed in absence Presumed in absenco Assumed risk, fellow Permitted if employer Abrogation of defenses
Porto Rico. No. 19. Ap Elective, as to all employments No provision.
proved Apr. 13,1916. In ef
except those having regularly
less than 5 employees, farm
fect July 1,1916. Amended,
labor not working with me
No. 9,1917.
chanical-driven machinery, do
mestic service, nonhazardous
clerical occupations, and em
ployees receiving more than
$1,200 a year.
Rhode Island. Ch. 831. Ap
proved Apr. 29, 1912. In
effect Oct. 1,1912. Amend
ed, ch. 937,1913; 1268,1915;
1534,1917.
ous employments in
absence of notice
posted in establish
ment and filed with
commission.
By paying premiums
and posting notice.
Remaining in service Assumed risk, fellow
service, contribu
with notice of em
tory negligence, and
ployer’s election.
negligence of per
sons “ whoso duties
are prescribed by
statute.”
Suit for oxcess dam
ages permitted, i n
addition to compen
sation if injury is
due to employer’s
intent to injure; also
permitted if em
ployer is in default
on insurance pre
miums.
Assenting employers
relived of liability
for ‘damages to em
ployees who remain
in service after no
tice of employer’s
election.
Defenses remain..
of wages during disability, not
over 300 weeks; weekly maxi
mum $10; minimum $3, or actual
wages if less than $3.
2 weeks.
Death, 15to 60per cent.
Disability, 5) per
cent.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice as soon as prac
hospital services; maximum,
ticable; claim in 3
$150; charges limited to those
months.
prevailing in the community.
55 per cent of wago loss, maxi Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice as soon as prac
hospital services; hospital bene
ticable; claim in 1
mum 150 weeks; benefits and
year.
fit funds permitted in lieu of
wages to be not less than $6 a
above. Charges limited to those
week. Specified injuries, 55 per
prevailing
in
the
community.
cent of wages for fixed periods;
weekly maximum, $12. Dis
figurement compensable if re
sulting in decreased ability to
obtain employment.
50 to 65 per cent of wage loss dur First aid, medical, surgical, and N otice as soon as prac
hospital services for 8 weeks;
ticable, not later
ing disability, not over 8 years;
maximum, $200.
than 30 days; claim
weekly maximum $12 to $15.
in 0 months.
Specified injuries, 50 to 65 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
weekly maximum $12 to $15;
minimum. $6 to $7.50; disfigure
ment of hand, head, or face,
maximum one-fourth death ben
efits.
50 per cent of wago loss during Necessary medical, surgical, and Notice in 30 days'
hospital services for 30 days;
claim in 2 years.
disability; not over 300 weeks;
longer at option of employer;
basicwage, maximum $24, mini
employee must accept unless
mum $10. Specified injuries, 55
otherwise ordered by board;
per cent wages for fixed periods;
charges limited to those prevail
maximum $13.20; minimum
ing in the community.
S5.50; permanent disfigurement,
not over 200 weeks.
Voluntary agreement approved
by board; disputed cases settled
by board after hearing; appeal
to court.
All assenting employers must re
port all accidents to industrial
accident board within 10 days;
supplementary report upon ter
mination of disability.
Specified injuries, 50 per cent of Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notico in 15 days; if Industrial
wages for fixed periods; pro
hospital services for 4 weeks, if
sioner.
in 30 days, not
portionate for others; weekly
requested by employee, court,
barred except as to
maximum $15; minimum $6, or
or commissioner; maximum.
extent employer was
$ 100.
'
actual wages if less than $6.
prejudiced; bar ab
solute after 90 days.
commis Voluntary agreement, 12 days- All employers must report all ac (a) No provision. (6) Bu
after injury, approved by com
cidents of more than 1 day’s dis
reau of labor statistics;2
missioner; disputed cases settled
ability within 48 hours to in
mine inspectors.2
by arbitration committee of 3
dustrial commissioner; supple
persons composed of represen
mentary report after 60 days or
tatives of each party and the
upon termination of disability.
commissioner; review by com
missioner.
Voluntary agreement; disputed All employers affected by act (a) N o commission; (6) de
cases settled by local arbitration
must report annually to factory
partment of labor and
committee representing each
inspector “ such reasonable par
industry.2
party or by an arbitrator se
ticulars as to accidents as State
lected by committee; in case of
factory inspector may require.”
failure, by an arbitrator ap
pointed by court, or by court.
60 per ccnt of wago loss during
disability, maximum 8 years;
specified injuries, 50 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maximum $12; minimum, $6.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 10 days;
hospital services for 00 days, if
claim in 6 months.
demanded by employee; maxi
mum, $150.
If permanent. 65 per ccnt of wages
multiplied by percentage of dis
ability; if temporary, 65 per
ccnt of wage loss; maximum
period 335 weeks; weekly maxi
mum $12; total not over $4,000.
Specified injuries, 65 per cent of
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maximum $12; minimum $5.
Compensation for disfigurement
if it impairs future usefulness or
occupational opportunities.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, not over 300 weeks;
weekly maximum $10. Speci
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
for fixed maximum periods;
weekly maximum $10, mini
mum $3, or actual wages if less
than $3. Facial or head disfig
urement, not over 100 weeks.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice as soon as prac Workmen’s compen
hospital services for 00 days, un
sation board.
ticable; claim in 1
less board fixes other period;
year.
maximum $100; maximum in
case of operation for hernia, $200;
charges limited to those prevail
ing in the community.
Voluntary agreement approved
by board; disputed cases settled
by board, a member of same,
or referee appointed by it; re
view by full board; appeal to
courts.
All employers subject to act must (a) No provision. (6) Mine
report all injuries of more than 1
inspectors;2 Kentucky
day’s disability to workmen’s
Employees’ Insuranco
compensation board within 1
Association.
week; *supplementary report
after 60 days or upon termina
tion of disability.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital services unless em
ployee refuses to allow them to
be furnished by employer;
maximum, $150.
Courts..
Voluntary agreement approved by
court; disputed cases settled by
court after hearing.
No provision.,
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, weekly maximum,
$10 for not over 300 weeks. Spec
ified injuries, 50per cent of wages
for fixed periods; thereafter 50
per cent of wage loss for not over
300 weeks; weekly maximum,
$10; minimum, $4.
Reasonable medical and hospital Notico In 30 days;
services for 2 weeks; maximum,
claim in 1 year.
$30, except in case of major sur
gical operations.
Industrial accident
commission.
Voluntary agreement approved by All assenting employers must re (a) No p r o v is io n . (6)
commission; disputed cases set
port all accidents promptly to
Department of labor
industrial accident commission:
tled by commissioner after hear
and industry.2
insurers must furnish informa
ing upon application of either
tion requested by commission or
party; appeal to court upon
questions of law.
insurance commissioner.
Industrial accident
commission.
Application by employee to com All employers must report all acci (a) No p r o v is io n . (6)
mission who render award in ac
dents to industrial accident com
Board of labor and sta
cordance with facts, or commis
mission at once. Commission
tistics;2 mine inspector.2
sion may appomt arbitration
may require additional reports.
committee of 3 persons composed
of representatives of each party
and a commissioner or deputyr
appea from committee to com
mission* appeal to courts.
Courts.
Notice in 6 months:
proceedings m u s t
be begun within
year.
Industrial
board.
accident
Voluntary agreement approved by All employers must report all in
juries to industrial accident
board; disputed cases settled by
board within 10 days.
arbitration committee of 3 per
sons composed of representa
tives of each party and a
member of board; appeal from
committee to full board; certain
cases taken dircct to board; ap
peal to court upon questions of
law.
(a) 60 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum, $12;
minimum, $6.50, or actual wages
if less than $6.50; not over $6.50
thereafter for 150 weeks; total
not over $5,000. (6) 60 per cent
of wages during disability, for
not over 300 weeks; weekly
maximum,
$12; minimum,
$6.50, or actual wages if less than
$6.50.
60 per cent of wage loss during
disability, for not over 300 weeks;
weekly maximum, $12. Speci
fied injuries, 60 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; weekly maxi
mum, $12, minimum, $6.50, or
actual wages if less than $6.50.
Reasonable medical and surgical
treatmentfor 90 days; maximum.
$100; court may allow additional
treatment, maximum, $200, if
need is shown wthin 100 days of
injury; charges limited to those
prevailing in the community.
Notice in 14 days; if in
30 days not barred
except as to extent
employer was preju
dice; bar absolute
after 90 days.
Limited supervision Voluntary agreement approved by No provision...
court; commissioner of labor,
by commissioner of
upon request, shall advise em
labor; disputed cases
ployee and assist in adjusting
settled by courts.
differences: disputed cases set
tled by court; appeal to supremo
court upon questions of law.
Death: Maximum basic Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a\ 66f per cent of wages for life;
wage, $100 a month.
Weekly maximum, $15; mini$100; widow or dependent wid
remarriage of widow or
Disability: Weekly max
ower, 30 per cent of wages until
dependent
widower.
imum, $15 ($20 for cer
death or remarriage; 10 per cent
Permanent total disa
tain injuries); minimum,
jnaximum,
additional for each child under
bility, life. Others, dur
^talnot over $3,500.
$5.
18; total not over 663 per cent;
ing disability.
maximum basic wage, $100 a
month. (6) Burial expenses,
maximum, $100; and $100 to cre
ate special fund for paying for
loss of second major members,
cent of wages for life;
Maximum,
$12. Mini Death, 8 years. Perma (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a') #|
Weekly maximum, $12; mini
mum, $5, or actual
$150; 66| per cent of wagesfor 8
nent total disability,
mum,
$5,
or actual wages, if less
years:
total
not
over
$5,000
or
wages if less than $5.
life. Temporary total
than $5. (6) 66| per cent of
less than $2,000. (&) Burial ex
disability. 6 years. Par
\vages
during
disability, for not
penses,
maximum,
$150.
tial disability, during its
over 6 years; weekly maximum.
continuance.
*12; minimum, $5. or actual
wages if less than $5; total not
0ver $3,750.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 500
Maximum, $10. M i n I- Permanent total disabil Fatal accidents not covered.
vreeks; weekly maximum, $10;
mum, $6, or actual
ity, W0 weeks. Tempo
pjinimum $6, or actual wages if
wages if less than $6.
rary total and partial
less
than $8. (&) 50 per cent of
disability, 300 weeks.
^ages during disability, for not
over 300 weeks; weekly maxi
mum, $10; minimum $6, or ac
tual wages if less than $6.
Monthly pension. Death Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) (&)
a month if single, $35 if
$15 to $50. Permanent
$100; widow or invalid widower,
dependent spouse, $0 for each
remarriage of widow or
total disability, $30 to
$30 a month until death or re
child under 16; monthly maxi
invalid widower. Total
$50. Temporary total
mum $50. If temporary, above
marriage; $6 for each child under
disability, during its
disability, $30 to $50, in
16; monthly maximum $50. (6)
schedule increased by 50 per cent
continuanoe.
Tempo
Burial expenses, maximum,
for first 0 months, but not over
creased Dy 50 per cent
rary partial disability,
60 per cent of wages. Compen
for first 6 months, but
$ 100.
years.
sation in all cases to continue
not over 60 per cent of
during disability.
wages. Permanent par
tial disability, $25.
Death: Basic wage, maxi Death. 300 weeks. Total (a) Expenses of burial and last (a) (&) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, maximum, 500weeks;
sickness, maximum, $100; 15 to
mum, $20; minimum, $10. disability, 500 weeks.
weekly maximum $10; minimum
60 per cent of wages for 300 weeks;
Disability: Maximum,
Partial disability, 300
$5 or actual wages if less than $5;
basic wage, maximum, $20; mini
$10; minimum, $5, or ac
weeks.
total not over $4,000.
mum, $10. (b) Expenses of bur
tual wages if less than $5,
ial and last sickness, maximum,
GOper cent.
Maximum.
mum, $5.
Approved substitute
schomes permitted
if benefits equal
those of act; waiv
ers forbidden.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment. Occupational dis
eases specifically excluded.
55 per ce^t.
Death: Maximum. $15. Permanent total disability, (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 55per cent of wages for 5 years;
Permanent total dis
life. Others, 6 years.
$150; 55 per cent of wages for 6
thereafter, 40 per cent for life;
ability: Maximum, $15;
years; weekly maximum, $15;
weekly maximum $15; mini
minimum, $5. Tempo
total not over $4,500 and not less
mum $5. (&) 55 per cent of
rary total disability:
than $2,000. (b) Burial ex
wage? for not over 6 years;
Maximum, $12; mini
penses, maximum, $150; and
weekly maximum, $12; mini
mum, $7. Partial dis
1750 to be paid into State fund if
mum, $7; total not over $4,500.
ability: Maximum, $12.
not insured in fund.
Waivers forbidden...
Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks; 1 week after
July 1,1918.
ing out of and in course of em
ployment, unless duo to willful
mtontion to injure self or an
other, intoxication, or failuro to
use safety devices. Occupation
al diseases specifically excluded.
Waivers forbidden;
hospital fund may
be maintained.
Personal injuries sustained on
premises of plant or in courso of
employment away from plant,
unless deliberately self-inflictod.
Occupational diseases specifi
cally excluded.
(a) (&) 50 per cent of wages during
disaoility; weekly maximum,
$12; minimum, $6; total not more
than deata benefits.
Mini Death, 360 weeks. Total (a) 60 per cent of wages for 360 (a) (5) 60 per cent of wages during
disability, 401 weeks.
weeks; weekly ma.Yimnm) $15;
disability, for not over 401
Partial disability, 300
minimum, $5. (&) Expenses of
weeks; weekly maximum, $15;
weeks.
last sickness, and funeral benefit
minimum, $5.
of $100.
81.0
Voluntary agreement approved All employers must report all in (a) No provision, (b) No
juries of 1 day’s disability or
by board; disputed cases settled
provision.
by board or by arbitration com
more as soon as practicable to
industrial accident board; sup
mittee of 3 persons composed of
plementary report at termina
representatives of each party
tion of disaoility or after 60
and a member of board; review
by full board; appeal to courts.
days; final report within 60
days after termination of dis
ability.
Industrial accident Voluntary agreement approved All employers must report all ac (a) Industrial accident
by board; disputed cases may
cidents of 1 day’ s disability to
board.
board, (b) Inspector of
be submitted/ to arbitration
industrial accident board with
mines.2
committee of 3 persons, ap
in 4S 1hours; supplementary
pointed by board, composed of
report after 60 days or upon
representatives of each party
termination of disability; final
and member of board or dep
report t within 60 days after
uty; review by full board;
termination of disability.
appeal to court upon questions
of law.
Industrial commis Voluntary agreement, 7 days after All employers within provisions (a) No provision, (b) De
injury; disputed cases settled
of act must report all injuries
sion.
partment of labor;2mine
by arbitrator appointed by com
of more than 1 week’s disability
inspector.2
mission; in case of death or per
to Industrial commission; fatal
manent disability by arbitra
accidents at once; others once a
tion committee of 3 persons
mouth; supplementary report
composed of representatives of
of permanent disability cases.
each party and a commissioner,
upon application of either
party; review by full commis
sion; appeal to courts upon ques
tion of law.
Voluntary agreement, 7 days after All employers must report all in (a) Industrial board. (6)
Industrial board.
injury, approved by board; dis
juries of more than 1 day’s dis
No provision.
puted cases settled by board or
ability within 1 week to indus
member thereof, after hearing
trial board; supplementary re
upon application of either party;
port after 60 days or upon ter
review by full board; appeal to
mination of disability.
courts upon questions 01 law.
Net ice in 3 months;
claim in 6 months.
(a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$100; 25 to 60 per cent of wages for
300 weeks; weekly maximum.
$11; minimum, $6.50, or actual
wages if less than $6.50. (6)
Expenses of burial and last sick
ness, maximum, $100.
63,1
Industrial accident
board for each
county.
Reasonable medical and hospital
services for 3 weeks.
Death, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
550 weeks. Temporary
total and partial disabil
ity, 300 weeks.
76.2
62.9
(a) No provision. (6) No
provision.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, for not over 300,weeks;
weekly maximum, $10. Speci
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; weekly maxi
mum, $10; minimum, $4.
Death: No weekly maxi Death,8years. Totaldisa- (a) 4 times annual earnings; maxi
mum. Total disability:
biiity, during its con
mum, $3,000; minimum, $1,650.
Maximum, $12; mini
tinuance. Partial disa
(&) Burial expenses; maxi
mum, $6. Partial disa
bility, 6 years.
mum, $150.
bility: Maximum $12.
1 week.,
50 per ccnt of wage loss during
disability, not over 312 weeks;
weekly maximum, $12; total not
over $5,000. Specified injuries,
50 per cent of wages for fixed
periods. Facial or head dis
figurement, maximum, $5,000.
accident
Death. 300 weeks. Total (a) 50 per cent of wages for 300 (a) (6) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, for not over 500 weeks;
disability, 500 weeks.
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
weekly maximum, $10; mini
Partial disability, 300
minimum, $4. (6) Expenses of
mum,
$4; total not over $4,000.
weeks.
burial and last sickness, maxi
mum, $200.
50 per c3.1t.
Benefit funds per Personal injuries sustained in
course of and resulting from em
mitted provided em
ployees do not con
ployment, unless self-inflicted
or due to willful misconduct,
tribute and benefits
disobedience to rules, or intoxi
eaual those of act.
cation.
Waivers forbidden.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital treatment for 2 weeks,
if requested by employee or
ordered by board; maximum
$25.
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,
Death and permanent Maximum, $7. Minimum, Death and permanent to (a) Burial expenses, maximum,$40; (a) $1,500 plus 75 per cent of wages
Personal injuries by accident aris None..
$1,500 plus 75 per cent of wages
for 208 weeks; weekly maximum,
$3.
tal disability, 208 weeks.
total disability, 75per
ing out of and in courso of em
for 208 weeks; weekly maximum,
$7; minimum, $3; ( b) 75 per cent
Temporary total disa
cent plus $1,500.
ployment, unless received whilo
$7; minimum, $3. (&) No pro
of wages during disability, for
bility, 104 weeks.
Temporary total dis
willfully intending to commit a
vision.
not over 104 weens; weekly maxi
ability, 75 per cent.
crime, when voluntarily self-in
mum, $7; minimum, $3.
flicted or while trying to injure
another, when duo to intoxica
tion, when willful criminal act
of another, or where gross negli
gence was sole cause.
Mini- Death. 300 weeks. Total (a) 50 per cent of wages for 300 50 per cent of wages during disa
Maximum, $10.
Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks; nono if dis 50 per cent.......
mum, $4.
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
bility, for not over 500 weeks;
disability. 500 weeks.
ing out of and in courso of em
ability continues for
minimum, $4. (6) Expenses of
weekly maximum, $10; mini
Partial disability, 300
ployment unless due to wilful
more than 4 weeks.
burial
and
last
sickness,
maxi
weeks.
mum,
$4.
intent to injure self or another,
mum, $200.
or intoxication.
7 days after date of
injury; none if disa
bility continues for
more than 30 days.
Notice in 14 days; if Industrial
board.
inf 30 days, not
barred except as to
extent
employer
was prejudiced; bar
alisolute after 90
days. Claim in 1
year.
50 per cent of wage loss for not over
270 weeks; weekly maximum,
$10. Specified injuries, 50 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
weekly maximum, $10; mini
mum, $4, or actual wages if less
than $4.
accident
$ 100.
10 days.
If permanent, 65 per cent of wage Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 30 days; Industrial accident Voluntary agreement approved by All employers, attending physi (a) Industrial accident
commission.
commission, disputed cases re
cians, and insurers must report
hospital treatment.
claim in 6 months
commission. (6) Bu
loss for fixed periods propor
ferred to one or more referees
all injuries to industrial accident
for disability, 1 year
reau of labor statistics.2
tionate to disability. If tempo
commission.
appointed
by
commission
and
for
death.
rary, 65 per cent of wage loss
reviewed by commission; re
during disability; not over 240
hearing in certain cases; appeal
weeks nor over 3 times annual
to courts upon questions of law.
earnings. Disfigurement com
pensable.
All employers must report all acci (a) Industrial commission.
commis50 per cent of wage loss during dis Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 30 days; Industrial
dents within 10 days to indus
sion.
(&) Department of labor
commission; disputed'cases de
claim in 1 year.
hospital treatment for SO days;
ability; weekly maximum. $8;
trial commission.
and factory inspection;2
termined by commission, after
maximum, $100.
total not over $2,080. Specified
hearing,
upon
application
of
inspectors
of coal mines;2
injuries, 50 per cent of wages for
bureau of mines.2
either party; petition for rehear
fixed periods;weeklymaximum,
ing;
appeal
to
courts
upon
ques
$8. Facial disfigurement, maxi
tions of law.
mum, $500.
employers must report (a) No provision. (6) De
50 per cent of wage loss during dis Such medical, surgical, or hospital Notice at once; claim Board of 5 compensa Voluntary agreement approved by Assenting
all injuries of 1 clay’s disability
partment of labor and
commissioner; disputed cases
in i year.
tion commissioners,
treatment as deemed reasonable
ability, not over 312 weeks;
weekly to compensation commis
factory inspection.2
settled by commissioner after
each supreme in
by attending physician; charges
weekly maximum, $14. Speci
sioner.
hearing
upon
application
of
his
own
district.
limited to those prevailing in
fied injuries, 50 per cent of
either party; appeal to courts.
the community. Special provi
wages for fixed periods; weekly
sion for seamen on United States
maximum $14, minimum $5.
vessels.
Nol ice as soon as prac Industrial
board.
ticable; claim in 6
months.
(a) 50 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
minimum, $6. or actual wages if
less than $6; thereafter $5 a week
for life, (b) 50 per cent of wages
during disability, for not over
300 weeks; weekly maximum,
$10; minimum, $6. or actual
wages if less than $0.
Maximum, $12. Mini Death, 550 weeks. Per (a) Expenses of burial, maximum, (a) (6) 66§ per cent of wages for 300
mum, $6, or actual
weeks; weekly maximum, $12.
$100; 66§ per cent of wages for 350
manent total disability,
wages if less than $6.
minimum, $6, or actual wages if
weeks; weekly maximum, $12;
life. Temporary total
less than $6; thereafter 45 per
minimum, $6, or actual wages if
disability, during its
cent
of wages during disability;
less than $6. (6) Expenses of
continuance. P a rtia l
burial, maximum, $100.
weekly maximum, $9; mini
disability, 300 weeks.
mum. $4.50, or actual wages if
less than $4.50.
$15.
52.4
Mine inspector.3
Rcasonablo medical, surgical, and
hospital services for 2 weeks, or
longer in unusual cases, at dis
cretion of board.
Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks; none if disa
ing out of and in courso of em
bility continues for
ployment unless due to willful
8 weeks or more.
misconduct, intoxication, fail
ure to use safeguards, violation
of law, or intentionally self-in
flicted. Occupational diseases
specifically excluded.
Personal injuries sustained in 1 week.
course of employment unless
due to willful intent to injure self
or another, intoxication, act of
God, or caused by act of third
party for personal reasons. Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
court.
Waivers forbidden...
(a) No commission. (6)
66§ per cent of wage loss during
disability, not over 500 weeks:
weekly maximum. $10; total
not over $4,000. Specified inj uries, 66$ per cent of wages for
fixed periods in addition to all
other compensation; weekly
maximum, $10; minimum, $4.
Death, 15 to COper cent. Death: Weekly basic wage, Death. 300 weeks; total (a) Burial expenses,maximum,$50; (a) (b) 50 per cent of wages for not
maximum, $30; miniover 520 weeks; weekly maxiDisability, 50 per
40 to 60 per cent of wages to de
disability. 520 weeks;
imum, $10. Disability:
imum, $10; minimum, $5, or
cent.
pendent widow or widower for
partial disability, no
Maximum, $10; miniactual wages if less than $5
provision.
300 weeks; weekly basic wage,
imum, $5, or actual
maximum, $30. (o) Expenses of
wages if less than $3.
burial,maximum, $50; and medi
cal attendance, maximum, $50.
p e n s io n ;
amounts not based
on wages.
31.2
Mine inspector.3
(a) 663 per cent of wages for 500 (a) (b) 66$ per cent of wages during
disability, not over 500 weeks;
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
weekly maximum, $14; mini
minimum, $4; total not over
mum, $4; total not over $4,000.
$4,000. (b) Expenses of burial
and last sickness, maximum,
$ 100.
(a) Expenses of burial and last (a) 50 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
sickness; maximum, $100; 35 to
piinimnm, $5, or actual wages if
60 per cent of wages for 300
Jess than $5. (6) 50 per cent of
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
wages during disability, for not
minimum $5 or actual wages if
over 300 weeks; weekly maxi
less than $5. (6) Burial ex
mum, $10; minimum, $5, or ac
penses, maximum, $103.
tual wages if less than $5.
M o n th ly
Voluntary agreement; disputed No provision,
cases settled by arbitration, refer
ence to attorney general, and
eventually by courts.
(6)
(a) No commission.
Notice of accident in
10 days; of death in
30 days, unless suffi
cient reason; claim
in 30days.
Maximum, $10.
Mini Death, 300 weeks. Per
mum, $5, or actual
manent total disability,
wages if less than $5.
400 weeks. Temporary
total and partial disa
bility, 300 weeks.
50 percent.
No provision,
Such medical, surgical, or hospi
tal services as may be required
by commission; maximum, $150
Charges limited to those prevail
ing in the community.
Death, 3o to GO per
j
r,53
cent. Disability,
66§ percent.
foluntary agreement; disputed
cases settled by courts.
Lump sums based upon schedule Only in fatal cases involving no Notice in 120 days; Courts..
claim in 2 years.
dependents; maximum, $150 for
of payments for permanent total
expenses between injury and
disability proportioned to loss
death
of earning capacity; maximum,
$4,800. Specified injuries, fixed
lump sums, varying with conju
gal condition and number of
children: disfigurement, $240 for
loss of ear, $480 for loss of nose.
50 per cent of wage loss during Reasonable medical and burial Notice in 2 weeks; Courts.
none required in
expenses only in fatal cases in
disability; maximum, $4,000.
case of death or in
volving no dependents.
competence; action
on claim within 1
year.
If permanent, 50 per cent of wage
loss; weekly maximum, $12;
total 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 maximum,
$12; total not over $3,000.
(a) 150 times weekly earnings; (a) (&) 50 per cent of wages during
disability, for not over 300
total not over $3,000. (6) Ex
weeks; weekly maximum, $10.
penses of burial and medical
attendance, maximum, $100.
per cent.
Accident reports required.
Partial disability.
Per
Accident-prevention work cent
by—(a) Compensation of em
commission. (6) Other ployees
subject
agencies.
to act.'
(a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 50 per cent of wages for life;
weekly maximum, $12; mini
$75; 50 per cent of wages for 8
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
years; maximum, $4,250; mini
than $5; total not over $5,000.
mum, $1,000.
(6) Burial ex
(b) 50 per cent of wages during
penses, maximum, $75, unless
disability, not over 6 years;
estate sufficient to defray same.
weekly maximum, $12; mini
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
than $5; total not over $3,750.
92.6
6S.7
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9
54.7
No commission.
(6)
few Orleans factory in
spector.2
All employers must report all in- (a) No p r o v is io n . (6)
j uries to industrial accident
Board of labor and in.
board within 48 hours; supple
dustries;2 district po
mentary report after 60 days or
lice,2 M assachusetts
termination of disability; in
Employees’ Insurance
surer must report compensa
Association.
tion paid within 60 days after
termination of disability.
72.9
45.9
87.8
(a) No p ro v is io n . (6)
Department of labor.2
83. t
(a) No p ro v is io n . (6)
Department of labor and
industries;2 county in
spectors of mines.2
79.0
Disputed cases determined, by
board subject to rehearing on
certain specified grounds; lim
ited appeal to courts.
All employers and insurers must
report all accidents to industrial
accident board; employers not
in Stato fund must report
monthly on compensation and
medical aid paid.
(a) Industrial accident
board. (6) Department
of labor and industries
(mines > and boilers
only).2
50.9
Notice as soon as prac Commissioner of labor Voluntary agreement filed with
commissioner; disputed cases
who is also compen
ticable; claim in 6
settled by commissioner; ap
sation commissioner.
months; bar abso
peal to court.
lute after 1 year.
Reports of accidents shall be made
as directed by compensation
commissioner.
(a) No provision. (6) Bu
reau of labor.
70.4
Reasonable medical, surgical, or Notice of injury in 30 Industrial commission, By commission under rules adopt
ed by it.
days; death in 60
hospital treatment for 90 days.
days; claim in 90
which may be extended to 1
days for disability;
year by commission. Trans1 year for death.
)ortation furnished. Charges
imited to those prevailing in
community.
All electing employers and physi
cians must report all accidents
to industrial commission.
(a) No provision. (&) La
bor commissioner;3 in
spectors of mines.2
76.2
Voluntary agreement, or by action
in equity before superior court.
All employers subject to act must
make such reports to commis
sioner of labor as required by
him.
(a) No commission.
Bureau of labor.2
(6)
56.0
All employers must report all ac (a) No commission. (6)
Department of labor.
cidents of more than 2 weeks*
disability to department of labor
within 4 weeks; fatal accidents
within S weeks.
9.S
(a) N 0 provision. (6) Mine
SO.7
All employers must report all acci (a) Industrial commission.
dents to industrial commission
(&) No provision.
within 10days: commission may
require any information.
58.5
All employers must report all acci (a) Industrial commission.
dents to industrial commission
(b) N0 provision.
within 1week.
77.3
50 per cent of wago loss during Necessary medical, surgical, and Notico in 30 days; Industrial commission
disability. for not over 300weeks.
hospital service for 15 days;
claim in 1 year.
Specified injuries, 50 per cent of
charges limited to those prevail
wages for fixed periods; weekly
ing in the community.
maximum, $12; minimum, $6, or
actual wages if less than $6.
All employers must report all acci (a) N 0 provision, (b) De
partment of labor;2, in
dents to industrial commission
within 10 days or reasonable
spectors of mines, oil,
and gas.?
time; commission may require
any information.
34.6
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.
Voluntary agreement, after 14
days, approved by commission;
disputod 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 maysettlo cases direct after
hearing; appeal to courts.
First aid, medical, surgical, and Claim for disability in Industrial accident Commission settles all questions;
appeal to courts.
commission.
3 months; death, 1
hospital services and transpor
year.
tation; maximum, $250.
All employers must report all acci (a) Industrial accident
commission must inves
dents to industrial accident
commission at once.
tigate violation of safety
laws and report same to
prosecuting attorney.
(b) Bureau of labor stastistics.2
48.7
Workmen’s compensa Voluntary agreement, after 14
tion board and de
days, approved by board; dis
puted cases settled by board's
portment of labor
and industry.
referee after hearing; appeal to
board; cases involving agreed
facts settled by board direct;
oF{aw t0
Up0n questions
All subscribers to State fund must (a) Workmen’s insuranco
board empowrered to
re port all accidents to workmen’s
mal:e safety regulations
insurance board within 7 days:
affecting subscribers to
commissioner of insurance may
State limd. (6) Depart
require insurers to file annual
ment oi labor and indus
statement of loss experience.
try;2 department of
AU employers (except casual
mines.2
employments) must report all
accidents of 2 days* disability to
department of labor and indus
try within 30days.2
All employers must report all ac (a) No provision; (6) Bu
reau of labor.2
cidents to bureau of labor within
10 days.
88.8
50 per cent of wage loss, maxi
mum, 150 weeks if permanent,
50 weeks if temporary; weekly
benefits and wages to be not less
than $6. Specified injuries, 50
per cent of wages for fixed pe
riods; weekly maximum, $10;
minimum, $9, or actual wages
if less than $6.
66§ per cent of wage loss for not
over 300 weeks; weekly maxi
mum, $12. Specified injuries,
66| per cent of wages for fixed
periods; weekly maximum, $12;
minimum, $6, or actual wages if
less than $6. Disfigurement, 25
weeks for loss of ear, 50 weeks for
loss of nose.
If permanent, 50 per cent of wages
for periods proportioned to disa
bility, maximum, 100 months:
monthly maximum, $60. If
temporary, 50 per cent of wage
loss, for not over 60 months;
monthly maximum, $40. Speci
fied injuries 50 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; monthly maxi
mum. $60; minimum, $20. Fa
cial disfigurement, not over 12
months.
50 per cent of wage loss during
disability, for not over 300
weeks; weekly maximum, $10.
Reasonable medical and hospital / Notice in 60 days;
claim in 6 months.
services for 2 weeks; maximum.
$50, unless there is a hospital
fund; special operating fee of $50
in case of hernia.
50 per cent of wages for periods
proportioned to disability; max
imum, 300 weeks. Specified in
juries, 50 per cent of wages for
fixed periods; weekly maxi
mum, $10; minimum, $5, or ac
tual wages if less than $5.
Reasonable medical and hospital
services for 21 days; but no time
limit in case of major operations;
maximum, $200; employer not
liable for aggravation of injury
for which he is not allowed to
furnish medical service.
Industrial accident
board.
{
Only in fatal cases involving no
dependents, medical attendance
and burial expenses; maximum,
$100.
Notice as soon as prae- Courts.
ticable and before
le a v in g service;
claim in 6 months.
Reasonable medical and hospital Notice in 14 days; if in Limited supervision Voluntary •agreement approved
by department of labor; depart
by department of
30 days, not barred
services for 2 weeks, unless em
ment may attempt to adjust
labor; disputed cases
cxcept as to extent
ployee refuses such treatment;
differences after 21 days; dis
employer was preju
settled by courts.
maximum, $50.
puted cases settled by courts of
diced; bar absolute
common
pleas; appeal to su
after 90 days; claim
preme court upon questions of
in 1 year.
law.
If permanent, compensation meas Reasonable medical, surgioal, and Notice in 14 days; if Courts.
prevented, as soon
hospital services for 3 we(k$;
ured by extent of disability.
as possible, not later
maximum, $50, unless there is a
Specified injuries, 50 per cent of
than
60 days. Claim
hospital
fimd;
special
operating
wages for fixed periods; weekly
in 60 days after em
fee of $50in case of hernia.
maximum, $10; minimum, $5
ployer’s
refusal to
or actual wages if less than $5.
pay compensation;
Disfigurement of hand or face,
1
year
in
case of
maximum, $500.
death.
By interested parties; disputed
cases settled by district court.
Appeal to supreme court.
665 Per cent of wage loss during Such medical, surgical, and hos Notice of injury In 10 Industrial commission Voluntary agreement, 14 days
disability; total not over $3,500
pital services as may be required
days, death in 30
after injury, approved by com
if temporary. Specified injuries.
or requested by employee for 60
days unless excused
mission; disputed cases may be
663 per cent of wages for fixed
for cause; claim in
days. Charges limited to those
submitted to arbitration com
periods; weekly maximum, $15
lyear.
prevailing in the community.
mittee of 3 persons, appointed
($20 for certain injuries); mini
by commission composed of rep
mum, $5, or actual wages if less
resentatives of each party and a
than $5. Facial or head disfig
commissioner or deputy; com
urement, maximum, $3,500.
mission may settle cases direct
after hearing; appeal to court
upon questions of law.
66J per cent of wage loss during Such medical and hospital services To ba fixed by com Industrial commission Commission determines all ques
disability; weekly maximum
mission.
as commission deems proper;
tions within its jurisdiction; ap
$12; total not over $3,750. Speci
peal to court.
maximum, $200 except in un
fied injuries, 66§ per cent of
usual cases.
wages for fixed periods; weekly
maximum, $12.
50 per cent of wago loss during disaability for not over 300 weeks;
weekly maximum, $10. Specified
injuries, 50 per cent of wages for
fixed periods; weekly maximum,
$10; minimum, $5, or actual
wages if less than $5.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notico In 14 days;
claim in 1 year.
hospital services for 14 days, un
less employee refuses; maxi
mum, $25; in case of major sur
gical operations, maximum. $<5;
if employee refuses medical ser
vice, employer not liable for
aggravation of injury.
No provision.....................................
inspector.2
If permanent, compensation pro Necessary #medical attendance Claim must be made
portionate to payments for per
in 90 days.
as prescribed by commission.
manent total disability.
W orkmen’srelief com
mission.
Investigation by commission and
bureau of labor; claims settled by
commission; appeal to court
only upon question of whether
injured employee is entitled to
compensation.
50 per cent wage loss during disa- Reasonable medical and hospital Notice in 30 days;
ability, for not over 300 weeks;
claim in lyear.
services for 4 weeks; maximum,
weekly maximum, $10. Specified
$200, including burial, in fatal
injuries, 50 per cent of wages for
cases involving no dependents.
fixed periods in addition to all
other compensation; weekly
maximum, $10; minimum, $4.
Courts.. . .
Volunt
court. ___________
court upon petitioa ol either
party; appeal to supreme court
upon questions of lav; or equity.
(6)
All assenting employers (except (a) N o commission.
Factory inspector.2
public utilities) must report all
injuries of 2 weeks’ disability to
bureau of industrial statistics
within 3 weeks, fatal within 48
hours.
83.0
50 per cent of wage loss for not Necessary medical, surgical, and Notico in 33 days un Industrial
commis- Voluntary #agreement approved
over 6 years; weekly maximum,
sioner.
hospital services for 4 weeks;
less excused for
b3Lc,°^Flissio? er’' disputed cases
$12. Specified injuries, 50 per
settled by arbitration committee
maximum, $100.
cause; claim in 1
cent or wages for fixed periods;
year.
of 3 persons composed of repre
weekly maximum. $12. Dis
sentatives of each party and com
figurement of head, face, or hand,
missioner; review by commis
maximum, one-fourth death
sioner;’ appeal to court upon
benefits.
questions of Jaw.
60 per cent of wage loss during dis Reasonable medical and hospital Notiet in 30 days; Industrial
accideni Voluntary agreement or by board;
appeal to court.
ability, for not over 300 weeks
board.
claim in 6 months.
servicesfor 2 weeks. Two weeks
(401 weeks if partial follows total
additional in cases requiring
disability): weekly maximum,
$15. Specified injuries, 60 per
cent of wages for fixed periods;
community.
proportionate for others, includ
ing disfigurement, if it impairs
occupational opportunities;
weekly maximum, $15; mini
mum, $5.
55 per cent of wage loss for not Such medical and hospital serv To bt fixed by com Industrial commission, Commission has full power to de
over 6 years; weekly maximum,
termine all questions relating to
mission.
ices as employer or insurer may
$12; total not over $4,500. Spec
compensation; limited appeal to
deem proper; maximum, $200:
court.
ified injuries, 55 per cent of
hospital benefit fund permitted
wages for fixed periods; weekly
in lieu of above.
maximum, $12-
All assenting employees must re (a) No provision. (6) In
spector of mines.2
port all accidents to industrial
commissioner within 48 hours;
supplementary report after 60
d&ys or upon termination of dis
ability.
58.0
All employers must report all acci
dents oi more than 1 day’s dis
ability to industrial accident
board within 8 days; supple
mentary report after 60 days, or
upon termination of disability.
(a) No provision. (6) Bu
47.9
All employers must report all acci
dents to industrial commission
within 1 w^eeic.
(a) Industrial commission.
73.1
Voluntary agreement approved
by commissioner; disputed cases
settled by commissioner after
hearing; appeal to courts.
All assenting employers must re (a) Commissioner of In
dustries. (6) No provi
port all injuries of 1 day’s dis
sion.
ability or requiring medical at
tendance to commissioner of in
dustries within 72 hours; supplementaiy report after each 60
days or termination of disability;
final report showing total pay
ments made within 60 days after
termination of disability.
55.2
All questions relating to compen
sation determined by depart
ment; appeal to courts.
All employers must report all acci (a) No provision; (6) Bu
reau of labor;2 Bureau
dents to industrial insuranco de
of mines.2
partment at once.
51.5
(&) No provision.
(<0 (6) 50 per cent of wages for
260 weeks; weekly maximum.
$12.50; minimum, $3, or actual
wages if less than 03; total not
over $4,000.
50 per cent of wage loss during dis
ability; maximum, 260 weeks;
weekly maximum, $10. Speci
fied injuries, 50 per cent of wages
for fixed periods; others propor
tionate; weekly maximum, $10.
Compensation for disfigurement
if resulting in decreased ability
to secure employment.
M o n th ly pension; Monthly pension: Death. Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$75; $20 a month to widow or in
$10 to $35. Permanent
remarriage of widow or
amounts not based
valid widower until death or re
total disability, $20 to
invalid widower. Total
on wages.
marriage; $5 to each child
$35. Temporary total
disability, during its
disability, $20 to $35, in
under 16; monthly maximum,
continuance.
creased by 50 per cent
$35. (&) Burial expenses, maxi
for first 6 months, but
mum, $75.
not over 60 per cent of
wages.
Death, $10 to $35 P e rm a n e n t disability, Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum,
maximum, $8; mini
remarriage of widow or
$75; widow or invalid widower
monthly pension.
mum. $4. Temporary
$20 a month until death or re
invalid widower. Per
Disability, 50 per
disability, maximum,
marriage; $5 additional for each
manent total disability,
cent.
$10; minimum, $5.
child under 15; monthly maxi
life. Temporary disabil
ity, 52 weeks. Perma
mum, $35. (6) Burial expenses,
mq.yimnm^ $75.
nent partial disability,
210 weeks.
(a) (6) $20 a month if single, $25
if married; for each child under
16, $5 a month; monthly maxi
mum, $35. If temporary, above
schedule increased by 50 per
cent for first 6 months, but not
over 60 per cent of wages. Com
pensation in all cases to continue
during disability.
(a) 53 per cent of wages for life;
weekly maximum $8, minimum
$4. (&) 50 per cent of wages dur
ing disability, for not over 26
weeks (52 weeks in special cases);
weekly maximum, $10; mini
mum, $5.
Proportionate amounts based Necessary medical, surgical, and
upon loss of earning capacity;
hospital services and transporta
maximum, $2,000. (Department
tion. Employeesmust bear onehalf cost.
adopted schedule o f injuries
based upon maximum statutory
provisions.)
Claim in 1 year..
Claim in 6 months; Compensation
missioner.
proof of dependency
m 9 months.
Commissioner has full power to
determine all questions relating
to compensation; appeal to
courts.
All employers must report any in
formation required by compen
sation commissioner for purpose
of act upon request.
(a) Commissioner may re
quire employers to
adopt and post safety
rules. (6) Bureau of la
bor; 2 Department of
mines.2
74.7
Disability, 65 per cent, Maximum, $15; m ini Death, 320 weeks. Perma (a) Burial expenses, maximum.
mum, $7.50.
nent total disability, 15
$100; 4 years’ earnings, but
years. Temporary to
amount added toprior disability
tal and partial disabil
payments may not exceed 6
ity, 320 weeks.
years’ earnings. (6) Burial ex
penses, maximum, $100.
(a) 65per cent of wages during dis
ability; maximum, 9 to 15 years
depending on age of employee.
(6) 65 per cent of wages during
disability; maximum, 4 years1
earnings.
If permanent, 50 per cent of wages Rcasonablo medical, surgical, and
hospital treatment; maximum,
for various periods (from 30 to
$150; maximum, $300 in special
210 weeks); 70 to 85 per cent of
cases wiiere disability can be re
disability, 40per cent of wages for
duced.
life; over 85 per cent, 50 per cent
of wages for life; weekly maxi
mum, $8, m inimum $4. If tem
porary, 50 per cent of wage loss
during disability, for not over 26
weeks (52 weeks in special cases);
weekly maximum, $10.
65 percent of wageloss, maximum, Reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital treatment for 90 days:
4 years’ earnings. Specified in
longer if disability period can be
juries, 65 per cent 01 wages for
decreased.
fixed periods, subject to exten
sion; others proportionate, based
on 80 per cent of schedule. Dis
figurement, resulting in loss ol
wTages, maximum, $750. #
Fixed lump sums for specified in None..
juries; others in proportion;
maximum, $1,000.
Notice in 30 days;
claim in 2 years.
Industrial
sion.
Voluntary agreement approved
by commission; disputed cases
settled by commission after
hearing; appeal to courts.
All employers of 4 or more persons (a) Industrial commis
sion. (6) No provision.
and insurers must report all ac
cidents to industrial commission
within first 5 days of each month.
75.4
No provision.
Courts.
Claims and disputed eases settled
by district courts of county after
hearing; appeal to supreme
court.
All employers engaged in extra- (a) No commission. (&)
Inspector of mines.2
hazardous employments must
report all accidents to district
court within 20 days.
y
Personal injuries accidentally sus
tained growing out of and inci
dental to employment, unless
intentionally self-inflicted.
1 week. None if dis
ability continues for
more than 28 days.
Not permitted.
Waivers forbidden.
No reduction of li
ability allowed.
Injuries sustained as a result of
employment, unless due to cul
pable negligence of employee or
willful act of a third party. Oc
cupational diseases specifically
excluded.
10 days in case of total Amounts not based Temporary total disabil No provision.
ity. Monthly pension
on wages.
temporary disabil
$18 to $40. Fixed lump
ity only; none if dis
sums in other cases.
ability continues for
more than 30 days;
lu m p -s u m p a y
ments in all other
cases.
Government can not
be sued.
No provision........
Personal injuries sustained while
in performance of duty unless
due to willful misconduct, in
tention to injure self or another,
or intoxication.
3 days. Compensa Death, 10 to 66| per
eent. Disability, 65§
tion begins on fourth
per cent.
day after disability
or exhaustion of sick
and annual leave.
D e a th : B a s ic wage, Death, during life or until
m o n t h l y maximum,
remarriage of widow or
$100; minimum. $50.
widower, other depen
dents, 8 years. Disabil
T o ta l d is a b ilit y :
M o n th ly maximum,
ity, during its contina$66.67; minimum, $33.33,
ance.
or actual wages if less
than $33.33. Partial dis
ability: Monthly maxi
mum, $66.67.
(a) Burial expenses, maximum.
$50; $1,200 to widow or invalid
widower; lump sum equal to
present worth of $60 a year for
each child under 16; total not
over $3,000 for all. (6) Burial ex
penses, maximum, $50.
(a) $1,400 if single, $1,600 if wife or
invalid husband; a sum equal
to $60 a year for each child under
16; total not over $4,000. (6) $18
a month if single, $24 if married;
$5 a month for each child under
16;monthly maximum, $40; t otal
not over $4,000.
(a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) (b) 665 per cent of wages during
disability; monthly maximum,
$100 and transportation; imme
$66.67; minimum, $33.33, or
diate family, 25 to 66| per cent
until death, remarriage, or 18
actual wages if less than $33.33.
years of age; other dependents,
10 to 40 per cent, maximum,
8 years; basic wage, maximum,
$100 a month; minimum, $50 a
month. (6) Burial expenses,
maximum, $100 and transporta
tion.
2 Not provided for in compensation law.
Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice as soon as prac Commissioner of in
dustries.
ticable; claim in 6
hospital services for 14 days;
months.
maximum, $100. Charges lim
ited to those prevailing in the
community.
reau of labor statistics,2
mine inspector;2 Texas
Employer’s Insurance
Association.
18,4
(a) Burial expenses, maximum,
$100; 15 to 45 per cent of wages
for 260 weeks; total not over
$3,500; minimum weekly basic
wage, $5. (b) Burial expenses,
maximum, $100.
Death, 15 to 45 per Death: Minimum basic 260 weeks.
wage, $5. Total dis
cent. Disability, 50
ability: M a x im u m ,
per cent.
$12.50; minimum, $3, or
actual wages if less than
$3. Partial disability:
Maximum, $10.
Insurance or other
schemes permitted
if benefits equal
those of act. Waiv
ers forbidden.
1Including all employees in employments covered by tho compensation law, whether or not the employers in elective States have accepted the act.
weekly .maximum $10; mini
mum $3. (b) Expenses of burial
and last sickness, maximum,
Maximum, $10. Mini Death, 150 times weekly
mum, no provision.
earnings. D isability,
300 weeks.
Injuries sustained in courso of em 1 week.
ployment, unless purposely selfinflicted. (Occupational dis
eases excluded by court.)
Compulsory, as to all
workmen in hazardo u s employments
employed for wages,
except when equiva
lent schemes arc in
force.
(a) Expenses of burial and last (a) 50 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum, $10;
sickness, maximum $100; 25 to
minimum $3. (b) 50 per cent
50per cent of wages for 300 weeks;
50 per cent.
Accidental personal injuries aris Two weeks; nono if 15 to 66| per cent
disability continues
ing out of and in courso of em
for more than 49
ployment, unless duo to willful
days.
intention to injuro self or an
other, or intoxication.
Compulsory, as to all employ
employees, except
officials or firemen
and policemen in
cities having pen
sion funds.
ing disability, not over 8 years;
weekly maximum $15; m in i,
mum $6.
Death, 30 to 50 per Maximum, $10. M i n i - Death, 400 weeks. Perma (a) Burial expenses, maximum,
mum, $6, or actual
cent. Disability, 50
nent total disability,
$75; 30 to 50 per cent of wages
wages if less than $6.
per cent.
for 400 weeks; weekly maxi
life. Temporary total
mum, $10; minimum, $6, or
and partial disability,
actual wages if less than $6.
300 weeks.
(6) Burial expenses, maximum,
$75.
Waivers forbidden.
Ohio. P. 524. Approved June
15, 1911. In effect Jan. 1,
1912. Amended, pp. 72,
396, 1913; 193, 1914; 508,
1915; 6, 157, 450, 528, 1917.
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.
(a) (b) 60 per cent of earnings dur
1 week. None if disa Death, 10 to 663 per Death: Maximum basic Death, during life or until (a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 50 per cent of wages for life;
wage, $120 a month.
monthly maximum, $50; mini
$125; widow or dependent wid
remarriage of widow or
cent. Disability, 53
bility continues for 3
Disability: M o n th ly
mum, $20. (6) 50 per cent of
ower, 30 per cent of wages until
dependent widower.
per cent.
weeks or more.
maximum, $40 to $70;
death or remarriage; 10 per cent
w ages
during disability;
Total disability, during
minimum, $20.
monthly maximum, $70 for first
additional for each child; total
its continuance. Partial
year; thereafter, $60; minimum,
not over 663 per cent; monthly
disability, 100 months.
$20.
maximum basic wage, $120. (6)
Burial expenses, maximum,
$125.
By accepting compen
sation or beginning
proceedings under
act.
suro in State fund,
or privato eompanies, or protde selfinsurance.
Death, 25 to 60 per Death: Maximum, $11;
minimum, $6.50, or ac
cent. Disability, 60
tual wages if less than
per cent.
$6.50. Disability: Max
imum, $12; minimum,
$6.50, or actual wages if
less than $6.50.
1 week. None if disa G63 per cent.
bility continues fbr
6 weeks or more.
Injuries arising out of and in 2 weeks.
No provision.
Fellowservice; burden Permitted in lieu of Defenses remain.
course of employment, unless
compensation after
of proof of contrib
duo to willful misconduct, in
injury.
utory negligence on
toxication, or violation of law.
e m p lo y e r; noassumptionofriskdue
to negligence.
injuries by accident aris 2 weeks.........
Presumed in absence Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
Abrogation of defenses No substitute agree Personal
ing out of and in course of em
ments valid.
of written notice to
of written notice to
service, and contrib
absolute.
ployment,
unless intentionally
employer.
employees.
utory negligence unself-inflicted, or due to intoxica
Jess willnil (deliber
tion.
ate act or failure to
act,recklessindiffercnce to safety, or in
toxication). Abro
gation is absolute
and does not depend
upon rejection of act.
Presumed in absenco Presumed in absenco Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
Defenses remain if em No provision except Injuries by accident arising out of 3 weeks.
of written notice to
of witten notice to
service and contrib
and in course of employment,
ployer has complied
that employer may
employees.
employer.
utory ncgligence.
unless duo to intoxication or in
'With, insuranco pro
maintain hospital
tentionally inflicted by himself
visions.
fund
or another.
Writing filed with
commissioner of
labor.
Compulsory, as to all Employers must inemployees.
Permitted if employer
in State fund is in
default on insurance
premiums.
mini
8 years; weekly maximum $12 to
$15; minimum $6 to $7.50;
thereafter 8 per cent of death
benefits for life, minimum $10 a
month. (6) 50 to 65 per cen^L
of earnings during disability;
weekly maximum $12 to $15;
minimum $6 to $7.50; total not
over $4,000.
(6) 50 per cent of wages during
Death. 300 weeks. Total (a) 50 per cent of wages tor 300 (a)disability,
not over 500 weeks;
weeks; weekly m a x i m u m , *10;
disability, 500 weeks.
weekly
maximum, $10 ; mini
m in i m u m . 9 4 . -(&) Expenses of
Partial disability, 800
mum, $4; total not over $3,000.
burial and last sickness, maxi
weeks.
mum, $200.
Defenses remain..
$10;
(a) 50 to 65 per cent of earnings for
(a) Burial expenses, maximum, (a) 50 per cent of wages for 400
weeks; weekly maximum $15;
$100; 50 per cent of wages for
minimum $6, or actual wages if
300 weeks; weekly maximum
less
than $6. (b) Same for not
$10; minimum $5. (6) Last
over 300 weeks. Compensation
sickness and burial expenses,
increased
by two-thirds for 5th,
maximum, $100.
6th, and 7th weeks of disability.
$ 100.
Death: No weekly maxi Death, 8 years. Perma
nent total disability,
mum. Total disability:
life.
Temporary total
Maximum, $12; mini
disability, 6 years.
mum, $5, or actual wages
if less than $5. Perma
nent partial disability:
Maximum, $12.
Presumed in absence
of written notice to
employer and filed
with commissioner
of labor.
must insure in State
fund, or p r iv a te
companies, or pro
vide self-insurance.
Death, 300 weeks. Per
manent total disability,
400 weeks. Temporary
total and partial disabil
ity, 300 weeks.
50 per cent.
Presumed in absence Assumed risk, fellow Not permitted.
service, and contrib
of written notice, if
utory negligence.
employer insures,
Mini
(a) 4 years’ earnings; maximum.
$4,000: minimum, $1,850. (6)
Burial expenses, maximum,
$150.
Death. 335 weeks. Total (a) Burial expenses, maximum (a) (&) 65 per cent of wages during
disability, not over 8 years;
$75; 65 per cent of wages for 335
disability, 8 years. Par
weekly maximum $12; mini
weeks; weekly maximum $12;
tial disability, 335 weeks.
mum $5; total not over $5,000.
minimum $5; total not over
$4,000. (6) Burial expenses,
maximum $75; and $100 to
representative of deceased.
2 weeks; 1 week if dis
ability is total and
permanent.
Presumed in absence
of written notice
posted in establish
ment and filed with
commissioner of la
bor.
employees, includ
ing those of public
contractors.
Mini
Accidental personal injuries aris
ing out o f and in course of em
ployment, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, willful misconduct, or in
toxication a„ the sole cause. Oc
cupational diseases excluded by
implication.
Elective* as to employ Not required.
ous ” employments enumerated,
except farm labor, domestic serv
ice, and casual employees. Vol
untary, as to nonhazardous em
ployments, but insurance in
State fund nccessary.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, intoxication, deliberate
failure to use safeguards, or de
liberate breach of safety laws.
$12.
Waivers forbidden..
Elective, as to all employments, ex
ees of counties, cit
ies, towns, villages,
and school districts,
except officials.
No contract may re
lieve employer from
liability.
Maximum,
mum, $5.
Death, 8 years. Perma
nent total disability,life.
Permanent partial disa
bility, S years. Tempo
rary disability, during
its continuance.
Maximum, $10*
mum, $4.
Minnesota. Ch. 467. Ap
proved Apr. 24, 19i3. In
effect Oct, 1.1913. Amend
ed, chs. 193, 209, 1915; 302,
351,1917.
cept farm labor, domestic serv
ice, steam railroads, casual em
ployees not in usual ccurse cf
employer’s business.
Approved s ch e m e s
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out pf and in course of em
ployment 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 by em
ployer.
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment. unless self-inflicted,
due to willful misconduct or in
toxication. Occupational dis
eases or injuries due to preexist
ing disease excluded.
Maximum, $12 to $15.
Minimum, $6 to $7.50.
50 per cent.
Defenses remain..
Permitted in lieu of
compensation if ac
cident caused by
deliberate intention
of employer or fail
ure to insure risk.
Defenses abrogated.
employers By subscribing t o
must insure in Mas
State association or
sachusetts Employ
insuring in other
companies.
ees’ Insurance Asso
ciation or other pri
vate companies.
employers
must insure in State
fund or private com
panies, or provide
self-insurance.
Difenses remain..
Approved s ch e m e s
permitted if benefits
equal those of act.
All other waivers
forbidden.
1 week.
Existing
approved Personal injuries by accident aris 2 weeks.
ing out of and in comae of em
schema* may be con
ployment unless due to willful
tinued; waivers for
intention to injure self or an
bidden.
other, or intoxication without
employer's knowledge.
Employers must in
sure in State fund or
private companies,
or provide self-in
surance.
Compulsory, as to la Electing
borers, workmen,
and mechanics of
State. Elective, as
to counties, cities,
towns, or districts
having power of tax
ation.
Not permitted..
Personal injuries by accident aris
ing out of and in course of em
ployment, unless due to willful
intention to injure self or an
other, or intoxication. Occupa
tional diseases specifically ex
cluded.
Medical and surgical aid.
Time for notice and Administrative system. How compensation cases are settled.
claim.
Industrial insurance
department a n d
medical aid board.
66! per cent of wage loss during Reasonable medical, surgical, and Notice in 48 hours, 1 United States Em Commission decides all questions
arising under act.
year for reasonable
ployees’ Compensa
hospital services, and transpor
disability; monthly maximum,
tion Commission.
cause; claim for dis
tation if necessary, for a reason
$66.67.
ability in 60 days, 1
able period unless employee re
year for rcasonablo
fuses.
cause; death, 1 year.
8 But employers having less than 3 employees lose defense of assumed risk if they do not elect.
Immediate superiors must report
sucn information as required by
commission immediately; sup
plementary reports as required
by commission.
(a) No provision. (6) Bu
reau of Mines;2 Bureau
of Standards;2Interstate
Commerce Commission.2
42.0
100.0
INDEX.
Page.
Abrogation of defease*_____________________________________________ __________________ 35, 36
Accidents:
Definition: of term______________________________________________ ________________
44
List of States requiring- tbat disabilities shall be result of------------------------------43
Notice ami daim for_____________________________________________________________82, 83
Preventiofi o f ____________________________________________________________________ 94, 95
Reporting of__________ __________________________________________________________ 93, 94
Adiainistra-tioH, systems of_________________________________________________________ 8, 83-85
Agreement, voluntary, settlement of disputes by________________________________ 84, 86, 87
Agricultural labor, exclusion of________________________________________ 1 2 ,1 7 -1 9, 21, 31-33
Alien beneficiaries, nonresident______________________________________________________ 87—89
Appeals to courts_____________________________________________________________________
87
Arbitration, committees of___________________________________________________________
86
“ Arising out of and in course of employment ” ------------------------- -------------------------------- 45-47
Assignments, attachments, etc_____________________________________ ________________
41
Awards, determination of_____________________________________________________________85-87
Beneficiaries, nonresident aliens_______________________________________________ __ .___ 87-89
Benefit funds__________________________________________________________________________
38
Benefits:
Amounts of, for death and disability------------------------------------------------------------------ 50-58
Percentage of wages as basis of_________________________________________________ 50—54
Period disability must continue to secure compensation_______________________48, 49
Provisions as to------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7, 49-82
Revision of------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------87
Summary comparison of________________________________________________________95—101
Blacksmiths, country, excluded___________________________________ ___________________ 18, 24
Boards, administrative______________________________________________________________ - 83—87
Burial expenses__________________________ _____ _______________________________________
55
O.
Casual labor___________________________________________________________________IT—19, 22, 23
Chart showing principal features of the laws________________________________________
101
Claims, time for filing--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------82, 83
Claims, time for maid nit-_____________________________________________________________ 82, 83
Clerical employees excluded______________________________________________________ 18, 19, 24
Commissions, administrative____________________________^__________________________ 5, 83-87
Committees of arbitration-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------86
Compensation benefits. (S e e Awards; Benefits; Schedules.)
Compulsory insurance--------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------6 ,1 3 -1 6
Compulsory law s___________________________________________________________________ 6, 12-14
Contracts of waiver, or providing different benefits__________________________________38, 39
Contributions by employees_______________________________________________ ____________39, 40
Cost, burden of------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------39, 40
Cotton ginning, repeal of exclusion of, in Texas____________________________________
6
Courts, settlement of cases by___________________________________________________ _ 84, 86, 87
Coverage----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 6, 16-34
D.
Damages, suits for____________________________________________________________________ 36-38
Dangerous employments-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------18-20, 31-33
Death, benefits in case of_____________________________________________________________50-55
Defenses, abrogation of------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35, 36
Dependents, payments to State funds in case none survive_________________________
55
Differentials showing value of combined benefits, table of_________________________
101
Disability.
(S-ee Partial disability; Permanent partial disability; Total disability.)
Disease as accident or injury________________________________________________________ 44, 45
Disfigurement, benefits for___________________________________________________________ 57, 58
Disputes, settlement of_______________________________________________________________ 83-87
Domestic service, exclusion of_________________________________________ 12,17-19, 21, 31-33
D-uration of payments. (S ee Awards; Benefits; Death; Partial disability; Perm rieat partial disability; Total disability.)
103
104
IN D EX.
E.
Page.
Education of injured employees_____________ ._____________________________________72, 73
Election, how m ade_______ -________________ '_____________________________________
35
Elective laws_______________________________________________________________ ___ 6, 12-14
Employees:
Fault or negligence of_____________________________________________________ __
47
Highly paid, exclusion of-------------------------------------------------------------------- 17-19, 23, 24
Number and per cent included and excluded_____________________________ 30-34, 101
Railroad, compensation for, and liability of employers_______________ 18, 19, 24-26
Rehabilitation of injured------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72, 73
Employer’s fault or negligence___________________________________________________47, 48
Employment:
Casual _______________________________________________________________ 18, 19, 22, 23
Hazardous________________________________________________________ 12,17-20, 31, 33
Included and excluded____________________________________________________ 12, 17-26
Injury arising out of and in course o f_______________________________________ 45-47
Not for gain_____________________________________________________________ 17-19, 23
Public______________________________________________________________ 6,18, 19, 21, 22
Securing, by injured employees______________________________________________
73
Exclusions from coverage_____________________________________________________ 12,17-26
Exclusions, numerical result of___________________________________________________26-34
Exemption of payments from attachment________________________________________
41
Experience, disinclination of States to be guided by, in enactments______________
8, 9
Experience, unfamiliarity of commissioners with__________________________________
5
Extraterritorial effect of laws____________________________________________________
23
Eyes, degrees of disability resulting from injuries to-------------------------------------------- 67-69
F,
F a u lt:
Of employee_________________________________________________________________
47
Of employer_________________________________________________________________ 47, 48
Foreign tables showing percentages of benefits for maimings_____________________ 65-68
H.
Hazardous and nonhazardous employments_____________________________ 12,18-20, 31-33
History of compensation legislation---- ----------------------------------------------------------------9-12
Hospital treatment------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72-82
I.
Industrial boards______________________________________________________________ 8, 83-87
Industrial diseases------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 44, 45
Industries. (See Employments.)
Injuries :
Caused by intoxication, willful misconduct^ etc____________________ __________ 46, 47
Classifications of States as to, table showing________________________________
43
Definition of term____________________________________________________________44, 45
Intentional_______________________________________________________________ 43, 47, 48
Provisions as to_____________________________________________________________ 42-48
Insurance:
As security for payments____________________________________________________ 40, 41
Methods permitted, table showing____________________________________________
14
Requirement o f----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40
State supervision o f_________________________________________________________ 41, 42
Systems of_______________________________ _________________ _______________ 6, 13-16
Intentional injury____________________________________________________________ 43, 47, 48
Interstate commerce, exclusion of-._______________________________________________ 24-26
Intoxication as cause of injury— T------------------------------------------------------------------------ 43, 47
Laws :
Changes in___________________________________________________________________
5—9
Chart showing principal features of--------------------------------------------------------------101
Comparison of provisions of________________________________________________ 95—101
History of legislation___________________________________________ _____________ 9-12
Influence of section, locality, and industries on type o f-------------------------------- 8, 9,12
List of States enacting, with dates----------------------------------------------------------------10
Scope o f--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18,19
Logging, exclusion of----------- :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------18, 24
Lump-sum settlements-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87, 90-92
M.
Maximum and minimum weekly payments--------------------------------------------------------------51-54
Medical aid board, State of Washington--------------------------------------------------------------- 76, 77
Medical and surgical treatment:
Duration, amount, etc., of, tables showing--------------------------------------------------- - 74, 75
Kind of service required------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76, 77
Provisions as to________________________________________________________ 7, 8, 72-82
Selection of physicians------------------------------------------------------------------------ 74, 75, 77-82
Miscellaneous exemptions from scope of laws---------------------------------------------------------23, 24
Monopolistic State insurance*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14,15
Mutual insurance associations____________________________________________________ 15,16
INDEX.
105
N.
Negligence:
Page.
Of employee, barring or reducing benefits____________________________________
47
Of employer, increasing benefits______________________________________________ 47, 48
Nonhazardous employments-------------------------------------------------------------------12,17-20, 31-33
Nonresident alien beneficiaries------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87-89
Notice and claim, time for_______________________________________________________ 82, 83
Numerical exemptions_____________________________________________________ 17-21, 31-33
O.
Occupational diseases.____________________________________________________________44, 45
Outworkers excluded_________________________________________________________ 18,19, 24
P.
Partial disability, amount of benefits for----------------------------------------------------- 50-54, 56, 57
(See also Permanent partial disability.)
Payments:
Lump-sum_______________________________________________________________ 87, 90—92
Security o f _________________________________________________________________ 40, 41
To State funds when no dependents survive--------------------------------------------------55
Period disability must continue to secure compensation-----------------------------------------48, 49
Permanent partial disability :
Comparison of schedules of benefits for______________________________________ 58-72
Methods of compensation for________________________________________________ 56, 57
Periods of payments, tables showing provisions of the laws of the States
in comparative form :
Adeqaacy, compared with standard schedule compiled by I. A. I. A.
B. C. committee------- *-------------------------------------------------------------------------63
Compared with period for total disability_______________________ 61, 62, 65—69
Relative severity, foreign standards--------------------------------------- -----------------65-69
Relative severity, State laws-----------------------------------------------------------------61
Relative severity, West Virginia compilation____________________________
62
Specified injuries-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------59
Vision, degrees of disability resulting from weakening of----------------------67-69
Fersons subject to acts, number of------------------------------------------------------------------------26-34
Physicians, selection of by employer or employee_________________________ 74, 75, 77-82
Poisoning as accident------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44
Preference of claims-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40, 41
Premium rates, State regulation o f______________________________________________ 41, 42
Public employment---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 17-19, 21, 22
R.
Railroad employees, compensation for and liability of employers to--------- 18,19, 24-26
Rates, premium, State regulation of_____________________________________________41, 42
Referees, settlement of disputes by-----------------------------------------------------------------------86
Rehabilitation of injured employees---------------------------------------------------------------------- 72, 73
Remarriage of widows------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------55
Revision of benefits---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------87
S.
Safety devices and laws, injury resulting from nonuse or violation of___________43, 47
Salary, employees receiving more than stated, excluded-----------------------------17-19, 23, 24
Schedules of amounts and duration of benefits for permanent partial disability.
(See Permanent partial disability.)
Scope of the laws---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 16—34
Security of payments---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40, 41
Self-insurance--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14—16
Settlement of cases---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85—87
Special contracts________________________________________________________________ 38, 39
State boards---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------83-87
State insurance funds___________________________________________________________ 14-16
State mutual insurance companies-----------------------------------------------------------------------16
State supervision over insurance and regulation of rates________ - ______________ 41, 42
Stock insurance companies_______________________________________________________ 15, 16
Stores, retail, employees of, excluded_____________________________________________ 19, 24
Substitute schemes------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38, 39
Suits :
Conditions which permit bringing of, table showing-:_______________________ 36, 37
Provisions as to_____________________________________________________________36-38
Systems of administration________________________________________________ !____ 8, 83-85
Systems of compensation and insurance provided for__________________________ 6,12-16
T.
Tendencies in compensation legislation___________________________________________
5-9
Time for notice and claim________________________________________________________ 82, 83
Time payments continue. (See Duration.)
Total disability, amount of benefits lor______________________________________ 50-54, 56
Traveling salesmen, exclusion of____________*___________________________________ _
24
V.
Vision, degrees of disability resulting from weakening of____ . . . __- ______ ____ 67-69
INDEX.
106
W.
Page.
Wage loss as basis of partial disability payments-------- ------------------------------------------- 56, 57
Wages, percentage of, as basis of benefits------------------------------------------------------------------ 50-54
Waiting time_____________________________________________________________________ 6, 7, 48, 49
Waiver of benefits____________________________________________________________________ 38, 39
Washington, State of, me" *al aid board--------------------------------------------------------------------76, 77
West Virginia, tables of t >mparative disabilities----------------------------------------------------- 62, 69
Widows, remarriage o f _______________________________________________________________
55
Willful misconduct:
Of employee______________________________________________________________________ 43, 47
ADDITIONAL COPIES
09
THU PUBLICATION MAY BE FBOCUXBD FROM
THE BUFEBJNTENnENT OF DOCUMENTS
OOYEBNMENT PRINTING OKHGB
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT
16 CENTS PER COPY
V
@FedFRASER