in re Panasuk
| Decision Date | 21 May 1914 |
| Parties | In re PANASUK. In re AMERICAN MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Sawyer, Hardy & Stone, of Boston (Edward C. Stone, of Boston, of counsel), for appellant.
Louis Swig, of Taunton, for appellee.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Panasuk received injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment for the Taunton Wool Stock Company. A splinter became imbedded in his hand, resulting in swelling, pain and a 'palmer abscess,' which required a surgical operation, and thereafter cleansing and dressing for several days. Panasuk was found by the Industrial Accident Board to have been 'an illiterate foreigner who was unable to read, write or understand the English language,' and he had no notice and no information was given him as to how he should proceed in case of accident, nor had he been informed as to the manner in which he could procure medical attention. There was posted in a glass case near a desk in front of the place where the employé worked the following typewritten.
'Notice to Employés.
'The Taunton Dye Works & Bleachery Company has provided for payment to injured employés by the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 50 State St., Boston, Mass., the compensation allowed by part II of chapter 751, of the Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto.
'Taunton Dye Works & Bleachery Co.
'June 26, 1912.
'Doctors to Whom to Go in Case of Accident and Receive Free Medical Treatment.
'1. Dr. T. J. Robinson, 56 1/2 Broadway, Telephone 525.
'2. Dr. T. F. Clark, 62 Broadway, Telephone 211.
The Taunton Wool Stock Company, for which Panasuk worked, and the Taunton Dye Works & Bleachery Company are separate corporations. Panasuk reported his injury to the foreman, who did not advise him respecting his right to medical attendance, and no effort was made to furnish medical service. Later, through the assistance of a fellow countryman, he went to the office of Dr. Joseph B. Sayles who found that there was urgent necessity for an immediate operation to prevent a serious condition which might require amputation of the hand or arm and who gave the necessary treatment. He wrote to the superintendent of the employer that he had such a patient under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But no attendance was sent to the employé. The only question raised is whether the amount paid to Dr Sayles for medical attendance by the employé during the first two weeks after his injury can be recovered.
It is contended that the Arbitration Committee and the Industrial Accident Board have no jurisdiction to consider this question. That contention is untenable. The purpose and scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to include all matters touching the relations between the employer and employé arising under the act. It is a remedial statute and should be given a broad interpretation. All controversies arising between the employé and the employer and the insurer under the terms of the act are to be settled in accordance with the procedure there established. This follows from general considerations touching the nature of the legislation and the aim intended to be accomplished by it. A critical examination of part second of the act, which relates to 'payments,' confirms this view. Section 1 provides that when an employé receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment he shall be paid compensation 'as hereinafter provided.' Sections 2, 3, and 4 relate to 'compensation.' Section 5 has to do with the medical and hospital services and medicines, and section 6 with the payments based upon the average weekly wage. The collocation of section 5 and its subject-matter show that its benefits are a part of the compensation to which the workman is entitled.
Section 5, part 2, of the act is as follows: 'During the first two weeks after the injury, the association shall furnish reasonable medical and hospital services, and medicines...
To continue reading
Request your trial