Nephritis.

Nephritis.-That employee's Injury resulted in nephritis, which lowered his
power to resist an attack of tuberculosis sustained Commission's finding
that injury accelerated his disease. Retmier et al. v. Cruse (Ind.).....

Notice.

971

30

227

Notice. Where injury to eye which did not appear to be serious at first
was known to foreman, and manager of employer offered $200 in settle-
ment, notice was sufficient for complete loss of sight fifteen months later.
Joliet Motor Co. vs. Industrial Board et al. (I.).......
Notice. Burden affirmatively falls on claimant to show that failure to give
written notice has not been prejudicial oral notice to assistant foreman
not sufficient on which to base a finding of no prejudice, where assistant
did not notify employer, although it was his duty to do so excuse must
be founded on facts from which the conclusion reasonably and logically
follows that the employer or insurer has not been prejudiced. In re
Dorb-Dorb vs. Frederick Stearns & Co. et al. (N. Y.).....
Notice.-Letter from employer's attorney to attorney for administratrix dated
November 6, 1913, acknowledging receipt of notice of claim, and letter
from attorney for administratrix dated November 3d, showed prima facie
that employer and his attorney received notice on or before November 6th,
as there is always a presumption that instruments are made or written
on the day they bear date-production of notice of claim by employer on
demand of attorney for administratrix was positive proof that employer
received notice. Jackson vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).. 160
Notice. Notice being irregular, the reception of depositions in evidence
against employer's and insurer's objections was error. Shaffer v. D'Arcy
Spring Co. et al. (Mich.)
Notice.-Defendant's liability under its contract did not depend upon notice
of contract by defendant to Industrial Board prior to injury only
notice required is notice of employee's injury within reasonable time to
defendant and board. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. V. Curtis et al.
(Tex.)

Notice. Where employee asked foreman and attorney of employer whether
he was under the act and they informed him he was and that claim
would be paid there was sufficient claim for compensation. R. F. Con-
way Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...
Notice.-Burden being on master who has rejected act to rebut the prima
facie case arising from fact of injury to miner by falling of slate, show-
ing that place was not reasonably safe and that his negligence contributed
to injury does not exonerate master-master must show that it was not
negligent or that its negligence did not cause injury, or that injury was
due to wilful misconduct or intoxication of servant, since servant assumes
no risks incident to business traceable to master's negligence-con-
tributory negligence does not defeat recovery. Mitchell v. Swanwood
Coal Co. (Iowa)
Notice Knowledge of injury on part of foreman under whose direct and im-
mediate supervision an employee worked and on part of superintendent
of factory was imputable to employer and it was not necessary to excuse
written notice, that knowledge of injury should be brought home to some
agent or representative upon whom summons in civil action might be
served-employee ruptured in June 1916, but rupture did not immedi-
ately disable him. With aid of truss he continued to work for same
employer, his superiors knowing of his condition and recognizing it by
giving him lighter work. In January, 1917. because of aggravated con-
dition of rupture he became totally disabled and was obliged to quit
work. Held, that real injury did not develop until January, 1917, and
notice given within thirty days thereafter was in time. Hornbrook-
Price Co. v. Stewart (Ind.)..

Notice. The purpose of the act is to afford interested parties ample oppor-
tunities to protect their rights, including those of review and appeal-
while board is not a court, it is an administrative body, with at least
quasi judicial powers-where clerk misdirected copy of award adverse to
claimant so that it was not received until time for appeal, the board
had the power and it was its duty to hear appeal. In re Ale et al.
(Ind.)
Notice. Where female employee scratched finger with pin, showed it to
her employer, asking him for an antiseptic, making no demand for com-
pensation, three days before disability resulted from infection, em-
ployer's messenger carried employee's uncollected salary to her after
she had failed to return to work, being shown the swelling on her hand
and told of cause, evidence of facts did not justify commission finding
that insurer and employee were not prejudiced by employee's failure to
give notice within ten days after disability. Bloomfield v. November-
In re Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co., Limited (N. Y.)..
Notice Where notice of injury was not given employer within ten days,
fact that superintendent of factory heard of accident within ten days
does not excuse failure-notice of injury within thirty days after death
of employee who died within ten days of disability, but more than ten
days after injury was sufficient. In re Gibbons (N. Y.).....
Notice. That final voucher sent plaintiff which indicated that it was in
fact final voucher consituted notice to him of decision of Commission to

418

875

752

602

582

585

659

697

suspend payment and notice of appeal being filed more than 30 days
thereafter was too late. Enneberg v. State Industrial Accident Com-
mission. (Ore.)

1144

1001

Notice. Oral notice is not notice of an accident required by the act, though
employer may obtain from oral notice knowledge of injury it is not
necessarily knowledge within the statute. In re Simmons (Me.)..... 984
Notice. The time begins to run when actual accident happens regardless
of when the extent of injuries is ascertained. Dane v. Michigan United
Traction Co. (Mich.)..
Notice.-Evidence insufficient to sustain finding that servant had given
notice or that employer had knowledge of injury within three months
of such injury. Herbert v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.)......1069
Notice. Notice by yard conducter to yard switchman of injury was not
notice to company. Herbert v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.)....1069

Occupational Disease.

(SEE DISEASE.)

Parties in Interest.

542

Parties in Interest.-Held that on certiorari to review an award confirmed
by Industrial Board the members of the board cannot be deemed parties
so as to permit proceedings in any county where they may be found.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).....
Parties in Interest.-Industrial Board is not a defendant or party in in-
terest whose place of residence would determine the county where
application for writ of certiorari to review an award under the act
should be made. Arcade Mfg. Co. V. Industrial Board of Illinois et
al. (Ill.)
... 547

Partner.

(SEE EMPLOYEE.)

Penalties.

Penalties. Master's failure to make reports of accidents to employees and
mail them to Industrial Board, the offense of failing to make report
occurs in the county of employer's business and the venue of action to
recover penalty is in that county. In re Burk (Ind.)..

Peritonitis.

597

Peritonitis. Evidence sufficient to sustain finding that a slight disability
consisting of a sinus and hernia were present continually from day of
first operation by insurer's physicians in 1914, until second operation by
them in 1916, followed by death from peritonitis. Western Indemnity
Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California (Cal.).... 478

Powers and Jurisdiction of Boards and Commissions.
Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Board is no more than an administrative
body empowered to ascertain some questions of fact and apply existing
law, and in doing so acts quasi-judicially-not vested with judicial powers
within general acceptation of that term and cannot set aside its own acts,
in absence of fraud, petitioned and proved. In re Stone (Ind.).......... 181
Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Under the act as provided, the com-
mission may, after commuting an award payable to aliens entitled to com-
pensation for death of servant and expected shortly to depart from
country, set aside the commutation of award, the aliens having elected
to remain in the country for the purpose of provision for periodic pay-
ments is obviously to preclude the beneficiaries under the act from be-
coming publich charges. Spaduccino vs. John G. Hayes & Co.-In re
Royal Indemnity Co. (N. Y.)....
223

300

Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Where no application was at any time
made by one unrelated to deceased servant for reimbursement for funeral
expenses, commission had no jurisdiction to make allowance on ground
that it appeared that such third person, a stranger to the record, had
made such disbursements. Western Indemnity Co., Inc., et al. v. In-
dustrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.).
Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Order of board refusing to reopen com-
pensation case was not res judicata of second application under the act,
providing that any weekly payment may be reviewed by Industrial Board,
there being no restriction on board's powers to review its former orders
for weekly payments. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.).... 418
Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Board not only passes on ceredibility of
witnesses, but draws its inferences from circumstances and facts which
it finds established. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.)..... .. 402

368

418

418

Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Where certified copy of an order denying award was filed with court and court, having found that commissioner had jurisdiction and erroneously decided that no compensation was due, could award the proper compensation. Griffith v. Cole Bros. et al. (Iowa) Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Under the act, authorizing board, on review of weekly payments, to "end it," on servant's application to review former order for weekly payments, order of board providing that it should close the case was not improper on ground board had no power to decree servant should receive no further compensation if his injuries should continue. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.).... Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Though the board later refused application by servant to review award, settlement agreement evidenced by receipt was not final and did not divest board of jurisdiction to make further orders. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.).. Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Act does not prevent recourse to courts which may investigate whether commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction, and, if such be the case, may set aside the award. Griffith v. Cole Bros. et al. (lowa) Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Industrial Board may award compensation for permanent partial disability in a lump sum. Underhill v. Central Hospital for the Insane (Ind.) 360 Powers of Boards. etc.-Compensation act empowering commission to fix rates of insurance is not unconstitutional-statute gives commission power to fix rates to be charged by stock corporations or mutual associations— when commission establishes rate for state insurance, rate so established becomes the rate to which other workmen compensation insurers must conform-commission has authority to reject policy where it provides in general terms for participation by employer. Scranton Leasing Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah (Utah)... Powers of Boards, etc.-Board has no jurisdiction to apply Compensation Act to persons or corporations not subject to its provisions nor to an accident not covered by act. Hahnemann Hospital v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (III.....

Powers of Boards, etc.-Failure of emplower to pay according to statute amounts to denial of claim for compensation gives rise to question for the determination of board. R. F. Conway Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).

368

882

754

752

875

735

875

Powers of Boards, etc.-Jurisdiction of Board to adjust claim against employers' liability insurer attaches as soon as claim for compensation for injuries to employee is filed. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Curtis et al. (Tex.) Powers of Boards, etc.-Section 82 and section 25 must be read together and so construed if possible. as to present a harmonious system for reexamination of matters decided-where no new facts had occurred commission had no authority to increase its award after denying a rehearing more than two months after date of award. Georgia Casualty Co. et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.) Powers of Boards, etc.-Where employer expressed consent by becoming subscriber to employers' insurance association, insurer obtained its license and permit and issued policy and claimant filed claim for compensation there was consent of all parties interested-where board made award to widow and on default she sued insurer, court, though it properly gave judgment of award, should not have given judgment and execution for installments which had not accrued. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Curtis et al. (Tex.) Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Award can be annulled if commission exceeded its powers, if award was procured by fraud or was unreasonable, or if findings of fact do not support it, but upon no other grounds; it cannot be set aside for errors of procedure only or for insufficiency of evidence if there is substantial evidence to support it-act empowers commission to adopt reasonable and proper practice and it need not follow practice of courts so that notice that award would be amended, unless good cause against it was shown within ten days was not improper. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al (Cal.)... Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Commission might receive affidavits of father and mother of deceased, residing in Ireland and taken before commissioner of oaths of state of New York, as bearing upon their dependency-liability to pay compensation governed by statute in force at time of accident. Moran et al. vs. Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc. (N. Y.). 694 Powers of Boards and Commissions.-It being claimed that employee was injured by getting caustic in his eye because he did not wear glasses, thus violating rule of employment, on evidence that caustic was spilled on employee's back when he was stooping down to pull his shirt off over his head, Industrial Commission had jurisdiction to determine that failure of employee to wear glasses was not cause of injury. Great Western Electro-Chemical Co. et al. v. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.) Powers of Boards and Commissions. When any facts are shown, which in judgment of board warrant it in commuting compensation to lump sum on ground that such commutation is for the best interests of parties, Its action is final and can be reviewed only for errors of law. Schwarm v. George Thomson & Sons Co. (III.).

484

491

533

Powers of Boards and Commissions.-The purpose of the act is to afford interested parties ample opportunities to protect their rights, including those of review and appeal-while board is not a court it is an administrative body with at least quasi judicial powers-where clerk misdirected copy of award adverse to claimant so that it was not received until time for appeal expired, and claimant within reasonable time thereafter claimed appeal, the board had the power and it was its duty to hear appeal. In re Ale et al. (Ind.).... Powers of Boards and Commissions.-Question of what disposition of compensation for death of employee is in proportion to respective needs of dependents is one of fact, the determination of which is committed to Industrial Commission which is necessarily vested with large discretion and no court should interfere. Perry et al v. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.)

585

474

48

906

Powers and Jurisdiction of Boards and Commissions.-Industrial Board may, like court or jury, draw reasonable inferences from facts and circumstances. Haskell & Barker Car. Co. (Ind.).... Powers of Boards, etc.-Commission has power to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear controversy after apparent bar caused by passage of period of statute of limitations. Kemper v. Industrial Acc. Commission (Cal.).. Powers of Boards, etc.-Board may determine compensation, but must do so pursuant to terms of act, but it cannot measure compensation by damages provable. McMullen v. Gavette Const. et al. (Mich.)........1006 Powers of Boards etc.-Board was without jurisdiction to entertain claim of widow of railroad's employee killed while working on interstate train. Miller v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. (Mich.)...

.1021

.1019

Powers of Boards, etc.-Board has no jurisdiction of servant's claim for compensation where servant employed upon a car ferry in interstate commerce when accident occurred. Thornton v. Grand Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Co. (Mich.).... Powers of Boards, etc.-Failure of carriers and employers to question board's jurisdiction of subject-matter does not bar them from afterwards doing so, though this can be only by appeal, if facts on which jurisdiction depends were before it for determination. Sullivan V. Hudson Nav. Co. (N. J.)....

Practical Joking.

(SEE FOOLING.)

.1105

Pre-existing Disease.

(SEE DISEASE.)

Presumptions.

190

174

Presumption.-As to presumption of negligence where employer has elected to reject term of act, presumption of negligence is rebuttable and it is for jury to say whether presumption has been overcome. Mitchell vs. Phillips Mining Co. (Iowa.) Presumption.-The Appellate Court will indulge a reasonable presumption in favor of sustaining board's award, but, in absence of any such showing in record, presumption cannot be indulged in favor of board's action, that it had promulgated a rule that if no answer was fled, allegations of petition would be deemed denied. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.).. Presumptions.-Whether negligence of employer presumed in such case from injury under Section 2477m, par. 4, had been overcome and whether defendant was negligent in failure to take down dangerous portions of roof were jury questions. Mitchell vs. Phillips Mining Co. (Iowa).... 190 Presumption.-The act presuming that injury was not caused by employee intentionally or from intoxication is inapplicable on question whether injury arose within employment-nightwatchman who went asleep and fell through an open door not injured within line of employment. Gifford v. T. G. Patterson, Inc., et al. (N. Y.)...

Previous Injury.

Previous Injury.-Employee compelled to wade through flood water which overflowed defendant's car works causing old wou..d on foot to become infected requiring amputation suffered an accident within the meaning of the statute. Monson v. Batelle (Kan.) Previous Injury.-Where commission made award for permanent partial disability because of loss of eye without having it brought to its attention that by reason of previous injury to other eye disability was total and had power to modify award, after claimant's time to appeal had expired-where eye was useless for vocational purpose claimant was entitled to compensation as for permanent total disability. Kriegbaum v. Buffalo Wire Works Co., Inc., et al. (N. Y.)....

431

770

861

Procedure.

Procedure. Section 55, providing that procedure shall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be, and the board may make rules not inconsistent with it, authorized promulgation of board's rule that if no answer is filed, allegations contained in application, petition or complaint will be deemed to be denied. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.)...

Procedure. Rules of procedure prescribed in Civil Code are not available in matters before the Industrial Board. Hagenback et al. vs. Leppert (Ind.)

Proof.

(SEE EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF.)

Prosecutions.

Prosecutions.-Failure to file evidence of compliance-venue-punishable in county where act should have been performed. In re Industrial Board of Indiana (Ind.)

Proximate Cause.

174

64

43

439

Proximate Cause. The act providing that "death when mentioned as basis for right to compensation means only death resulting from such injuries," proof of injury, of an operation therefor and that after apparent recovery from effects of operation and anaesthesia, the servant died from a disease existing before injury is clearly insufficient to establish death resulting from injury. Tucillo v. Ward Baking Co.-In re Ocean Accldent & Guarantee Corp. (N. Y. )..... Proximate Cause.-Proof failed to support theory that hernia received by employee while lifting, or operation therefor, accellerated or aggavated his cardiac condition, or that it was the direct cause of death. Tucillo v. Ward Baking Co.-In re Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (N. Y.).. 439 Proximate Cause.-Where employee receives injury caused by weather conditions, it is ordinarily a question of fact whether his employment was a contributing proximate cause within the provisions of the act, authorizing payment for injuries arising out of employment. In re Harraden (Ind.) Proximate Cause.-Death by fall from epileptic fit was not within statute. Brooker et al. vs. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.). Proximate Cause.-Evidence sufficient to justify board inferring that employees fell from frost-covered and unguarded trestle and that death was caused by apoplexy, it is not necessary for widow to exclude possibility that husband's death might have been due to apoplectic shock, but merely to satisfy the board by fair preponderance of evidence that he received injury resulting in death arising out of employment. In re Uzzio

Rate Fixing.

(Mass.)..

Rate Fixing.-Compensation Act empowering commission to fix rates of insurance is not unconstitutional-statute gives commission power to fix rates to be charged by stock corporations or mutual associations-when commission establishes rate for state insurance, rates so established become the rate to which other workmen compensation insurers must conform-commission has authority to reject policy where it provided in general terms for participation by employer. Scranton Leasing Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah (Utah).

Recovery.

Recovery. Section 8, chapter 209, of the Laws of 1915, limiting the time to recover under the Compensation Act to one year after the occurrence of the injury, does not apply to claims that accrued before the passage of the 1915 Statute State ex rel. Berwind Fuel Co. v. District Court, St Louis County, et al. (Minn.)...

Rejection of Act.

(SEE ELECTION.)

Release.

(SEE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE.)

Reports.

Reports. Employer who avalled himself of Workmen's Compensation Act, sections 2 and 3, exempting him from payment of compensation after

338

3

80

882

91