Claim for Your Accident Compensation with Sue 4 Pain Attorne
Industrial Disease Compensation: a Delayed Claim
1
190 MEDICINE AND THE LAW. Industrial Disease Compensation: a Delayed Claim. IN a Workmen’s Compensation Act appeal, lately dealt with by the House of Lords, Lord Blanesburgh remarked of a certifying surgeon that "so far as professional skill was concerned he adequately filled his post, but as the filler up of a form he had shown himself a blunderer." The comment was not intended harshly. Learned judges are aware that accuracy and success in the filling up of forms are not auto- matic ; they themselves have occasionally revealed inability to complete a printed will form so as to make a valid testamentary disposition of their property. The case before the House of Lords, however, displayed an unusual sequence of errors. First of all, the certifying surgeon, having to certify an industrial disease case, filled up the certificate with the wrong disease-or rather he described the disease as " epithelioma of the scrotum " instead of using the exact description from the statutory list of industrial diseases. Secondly, when faced with the words in the form, " I hereby certify that the disablement commenced on the day," he neither filled in the blank nor crossed out the sentence (as the form required him to do if the blank were not filled). This omission left it uncertain whether he meant to specify a date or to let the date of the certificate stand (under Section 43 (2) of the 1925 Act) as the date of disablement. The Act treats the date of disablement from an industrial disease as if it were the happening of an accident for which the workman can recover compensation. Section 14 of the Act stipulates that the employer must have notice of the workman’s claim within six months. Here the certificate (the basis of the claim for com- pensation for the industrial disease) was dated July 24th, 1929 ; but that date was more than 12 months later than the date on which the workman left the employers’ service. He had been an operative cotton spinner; the employers had closed down their works entirely on June 13th, 1928, and the man had not been employed since then. The firm repudiated liability on the ground that the claim was out of date. Three months later the trade union agent, acting for the workman, applied for a fresh certificate. The certifying surgeon thereupon examined the man again and sent another certificate, but made yet another mistake in filling up the form. He correctly described the industrial disease, but the date of disablement was specified as " the 22nd day of 1929," no month being inserted. After further correspondence, the certificate came back complete at last ; it was dated Jan. 18th, 1930, and it specified the date of disablement as "the 22nd day of May, 1929." The claim, having thus been made as on Jan. 18th, 1930, was out of time ; but the Act contains a proviso (to Section 14) safeguarding cases where the failure to make a claim within the time- limit is found due to " mistake, absence from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable cause." Did the facts of the case amount to " reasonable cause " for the delay ? The House of Lords has answered " Yes." So the workman, suffering from epitheliomatous cancer after 17 years as a cotton spinner, fortunately does not lose his statutory compensation by reason of the errors which contributed to the delay in making the claim. But it is to be understood that Parliament intended the time limit to be some protection to the employers against improper claims ; and Lord Blanesburgh adds the warning that the recent decision is not to be taken to countenance the workman " sitting on in the knowledge that he has contracted a disease and doing nothing to make good his claim." B.M.A. Action against Drug Stores. In the Chancery Division, on July 15th, the British Medical Association obtained an injunction against a defendant, trading in South-East London, who offered for sale drugs and medical remedies bearing the letters " B.M.A.," and who called his business the " B.M.A. Drug Stores." The defendant argued that "B.M.A." did not necessarily or exclusively denote the British Medical Association, and that he was entitled to use the letters. Mr. Justice Maugham, however, was satisfied that the acts of the defendant tended to injure the Association as being likely to cause its existing members to leave it and its prospec- tive members to abstain from joining it. The Asso- ciation was a purely voluntary body, dependent on subscriptions. People who saw the words " B.M.A. Drug Stores," or the defendant’s shop-windows, might think-and ordinary members of the public would think-that the British Medical Association was somehow connected with the shops. The case resembled the proceedings on July 13th before Mr. Justice Farwell, wherein the British Legion com. plained that a company called the British Legion Club (Street), Ltd., was conducting a club at Street, in Somerset, which owed no allegiance to the British Legion ; the members of the club were to be ex- Service men or other persons over age ; there was n( requirement that the members should be members of the British Legion. The defendant company answered that it had been incorporated in 1921, whereas the British Legion was not incorporated as such by Royal Charter until 1925. The judge said the name of " British Legion " was well known in 1922, and it was a fallacy to say that a voluntary association could not assert its right to the name ; there was clearly a possibility of confusion even if there was no actual evidence. Both the British Legion and the British Medical Association succeeded in obtaining the injunction desired. A HOSPITAL TRIBUTE.-Sir Henry Dickens, Common Sergeant of the City of London, recently unveiled, in the male ward of the Passmore Edwards Hospital, a bronze tablet in recognition of the work of the Dickens Players, of Bowes Park, who have substantially helped the hospital by their performances. COMPULSORY VACCINATION.-Mr. Arthur Greenwood, the Minister of Health, on July 15th received a deputation of Members of Parliament who urged that compulsory vaccination should be abolished, and expressed a hope that the Government would introduce, or give facilities for the necessary legislation. They believed that all they wanted could be achieved by a one-clause Bill. The Minister said that he was bound to administer the law as it stood. The effect of the Local Government Act had been to place the administration of the Vaccination Acts in the hands of the larger local authorities, and he did not contemplate any drastic amendment of the law until those authorities had had time to gain experience of the operation of the Acts in force and furnish him with their views and advice. He believed that complicated and highly contro- versial legislation would be necessary to secure what the deputation desired. He must, in present circumstances, prefer the claims of other legislation to those of a Vaccina- tion Bill. While, therefore, he could have no objection to the introduction of a Private Member’s Bill as a means of testing public opinion, lie could give no assurances either of support for such a Bill or of the introduction at an early date of Government legislation.
Transcript of Industrial Disease Compensation: a Delayed Claim
190
MEDICINE AND THE LAW.
Industrial Disease Compensation: a DelayedClaim.
IN a Workmen’s Compensation Act appeal, latelydealt with by the House of Lords, Lord Blanesburghremarked of a certifying surgeon that "so far as
professional skill was concerned he adequately filledhis post, but as the filler up of a form he had shownhimself a blunderer." The comment was not intendedharshly. Learned judges are aware that accuracyand success in the filling up of forms are not auto-matic ; they themselves have occasionally revealedinability to complete a printed will form so as tomake a valid testamentary disposition of their
property. The case before the House of Lords,however, displayed an unusual sequence of errors.
First of all, the certifying surgeon, having to certifyan industrial disease case, filled up the certificatewith the wrong disease-or rather he described thedisease as " epithelioma of the scrotum " insteadof using the exact description from the statutorylist of industrial diseases. Secondly, when facedwith the words in the form, "
I hereby certify thatthe disablement commenced on the - day," heneither filled in the blank nor crossed out the sentence(as the form required him to do if the blank werenot filled). This omission left it uncertain whetherhe meant to specify a date or to let the date of thecertificate stand (under Section 43 (2) of the 1925 Act)as the date of disablement. The Act treats the dateof disablement from an industrial disease as if itwere the happening of an accident for which theworkman can recover compensation. Section 14 ofthe Act stipulates that the employer must havenotice of the workman’s claim within six months.Here the certificate (the basis of the claim for com-pensation for the industrial disease) was dated
July 24th, 1929 ; but that date was more than12 months later than the date on which the workmanleft the employers’ service. He had been an operativecotton spinner; the employers had closed downtheir works entirely on June 13th, 1928, and theman had not been employed since then. The firm
repudiated liability on the ground that the claimwas out of date. Three months later the trade union
agent, acting for the workman, applied for a freshcertificate. The certifying surgeon thereupon examinedthe man again and sent another certificate, but madeyet another mistake in filling up the form. Hecorrectly described the industrial disease, but thedate of disablement was specified as " the 22nd
day of 1929," no month being inserted. After furthercorrespondence, the certificate came back completeat last ; it was dated Jan. 18th, 1930, and it specifiedthe date of disablement as "the 22nd day of May,1929." The claim, having thus been made as on
Jan. 18th, 1930, was out of time ; but the Actcontains a proviso (to Section 14) safeguarding caseswhere the failure to make a claim within the time-limit is found due to " mistake, absence from theUnited Kingdom, or other reasonable cause." Did thefacts of the case amount to " reasonable cause " forthe delay ? The House of Lords has answered " Yes."So the workman, suffering from epitheliomatouscancer after 17 years as a cotton spinner, fortunatelydoes not lose his statutory compensation by reasonof the errors which contributed to the delay in makingthe claim. But it is to be understood that Parliamentintended the time limit to be some protection to the
employers against improper claims ; and Lord
Blanesburgh adds the warning that the recentdecision is not to be taken to countenance theworkman " sitting on in the knowledge that he hascontracted a disease and doing nothing to make goodhis claim."
B.M.A. Action against Drug Stores.In the Chancery Division, on July 15th, the British
Medical Association obtained an injunction againsta defendant, trading in South-East London, whooffered for sale drugs and medical remedies bearingthe letters " B.M.A.," and who called his business the" B.M.A. Drug Stores." The defendant argued that"B.M.A." did not necessarily or exclusively denotethe British Medical Association, and that he wasentitled to use the letters. Mr. Justice Maugham,however, was satisfied that the acts of the defendanttended to injure the Association as being likely tocause its existing members to leave it and its prospec-tive members to abstain from joining it. The Asso-ciation was a purely voluntary body, dependent onsubscriptions. People who saw the words " B.M.A.Drug Stores," or the defendant’s shop-windows,might think-and ordinary members of the publicwould think-that the British Medical Associationwas somehow connected with the shops. The caseresembled the proceedings on July 13th before Mr.Justice Farwell, wherein the British Legion com.plained that a company called the British LegionClub (Street), Ltd., was conducting a club at Street,in Somerset, which owed no allegiance to the BritishLegion ; the members of the club were to be ex-Service men or other persons over age ; there was n(requirement that the members should be members ofthe British Legion. The defendant company answeredthat it had been incorporated in 1921, whereas theBritish Legion was not incorporated as such by RoyalCharter until 1925. The judge said the name of" British Legion " was well known in 1922, and it wasa fallacy to say that a voluntary association couldnot assert its right to the name ; there was clearly apossibility of confusion even if there was no actualevidence. Both the British Legion and the BritishMedical Association succeeded in obtaining the
injunction desired.
A HOSPITAL TRIBUTE.-Sir Henry Dickens,Common Sergeant of the City of London, recently unveiled,in the male ward of the Passmore Edwards Hospital, abronze tablet in recognition of the work of the DickensPlayers, of Bowes Park, who have substantially helpedthe hospital by their performances.
COMPULSORY VACCINATION.-Mr. ArthurGreenwood, the Minister of Health, on July 15threceived a deputation of Members of Parliament whourged that compulsory vaccination should be abolished,and expressed a hope that the Government would introduce,or give facilities for the necessary legislation. They believedthat all they wanted could be achieved by a one-clause Bill.The Minister said that he was bound to administer the lawas it stood. The effect of the Local Government Act hadbeen to place the administration of the Vaccination Actsin the hands of the larger local authorities, and he did notcontemplate any drastic amendment of the law until thoseauthorities had had time to gain experience of the operationof the Acts in force and furnish him with their views andadvice. He believed that complicated and highly contro-versial legislation would be necessary to secure what thedeputation desired. He must, in present circumstances,prefer the claims of other legislation to those of a Vaccina-tion Bill. While, therefore, he could have no objection tothe introduction of a Private Member’s Bill as a means of -
testing public opinion, lie could give no assurances eitherof support for such a Bill or of the introduction at an earlydate of Government legislation.
