In re Mathewson

• Decision Date: 27 June 1917
• Citation: 116 N.E. 831,227 Mass. 470
• Parties: In re MATHEWSON. In re CONTRACTORS' MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

227 Mass. 470

116 N.E. 831

In re MATHEWSON. In re CONTRACTORS' MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 27, 1917.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Albert Mathewson, employé, to recover compensation from C. A. Batson, employer, and the Contractors' Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurer. From a decree awarding compensation, the insurer appeals. Reversed and recommitted.

Paul L. Keenan and Jonathan W. French, both of Boston (Boston Legal Aid Society), for employé.

N. F. Hesseltine and J. F. Scannell, both of Boston, for insurer.

CROSBY, J.

This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Committee of Arbitration found that the employé received an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment. That finding has been affirmed by the Industrial Accident Board upon review.

No notice of the injury was given in accordance with the provisions of St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 2, § 15, but it was found by the Committee that ‘report of the injury was made by the employer on April 30, 1915.’ The fact that a report of the injury was made by the employer is amply sufficient to warrant a finding that the subscriber had knowledge of the injury in accordance with part 2, § 18. Bloom's Case, 222 Mass. 434, 111 N. E. 45;McLean's Case, 223 Mass. 342, 111 N. E. 783.

The cause of the employé's injury, as stated in his claim for compensation therefor, was by reason of using ‘Magic paint remover, the Wonder paint remover, denatured alcohol, ammonia and lead.’ In other words, it is claimed that the injury was due to lead poisoning or plumbism.

The Committee and the Board found that on April 27, 1915, the employé received a personal injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment; that the injury caused a reduction in the vision of his right eye of one-tenth of normal with glasses, by reason of which he was entitled under part 2, § 11b, to $10 a week for a period of 50 weeks from the date of the injury; and that he was also entitled to compensation for total and partial incapacity, together with medical expenses, as stated in the report of the Committee and in the findings and decision of the Board.

The act provides in section 7 of part 3, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, § 12, that:

‘The decision of the Committee, together with a statement of the evidence submitted before it, its findings of fact, rulings of law and any other matters pertinent to questions arising before it shall be filed with the Industrial Accident Board.’

It is also provided in section 10 of part 3, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, § 13, that:

‘If a claim for a review is filed, as provided in part 3, section 7, the Board shall hear the parties and may hear evidence in regard to any or all matters pertinent thereto and may revise the decision of the Committee in whole or in part, or may refer the matter back to the Committee for further findings of fact. * * *’

While in the case at bar the Committee of Arbitration finds upon the evidence that the employé received an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment, it makes no findings of specific facts, nor does it state any conclusions drawn from the evidence in support of the general finding. Upon the question whether the injury did or did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, the only evidence before us is the...