In re Ripley

• Decision Date: 21 January 1918
• Parties: In re RIPLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

229 Mass. 302

118 N.E. 638

In re RIPLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 21, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frank Ripley, opposed by the Independent Ice Company, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, the insurer. From a decree directing the insurer to pay to physicians certain sums for medical services rendered the employee, the insurer appeals. Decree affirmed.

Walter Coulson, of Lawrence, and Jas. A. Donovan, of Boston, for physicians.

Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston (Gay Gleason, of Boston, of counsel), for insurer.

CROSBY, J.

This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1911, c. 751, as amended) by the insurer from a decree of the superior court directing the insurer to pay to two physicians certain sums for medical services rendered to Ripley, the employee, during the first two weeks following his injury.

The circumstances under which the services were rendered may be briefly stated: The employee, who was employed in a stable of the employer, was injured by being kicked by a horse; the foreman of the employer, one Paul, arrived at the stable soon after the accident and suggested to the employee that he be taken to the Cambridge Relief Hospital. Ripley replied that he did not want to go to the hospital, that he would like to have his own doctor if he could have him. The foreman told Ripley that he did not know of any reason why he could not have his own doctor, and Dr. Lacey was called who took Ripley home and treated him for his injuries. His bill for services covers the first two weeks after the injury. Dr. Cotton was called in by Dr. Lacey and assisted in treating the employee.

The uncontradicted evidence shows that at the time of the injury and previously thereto, notices were posted in different places on the premises where Ripley was employed directing the employees where to go for treatment in case of injury; one of the places so designated by the notices was the Cambridge Relief Hospital on Prospect Street.

The provision of the statute which requires the association to furnish ‘reasonable medical and hospital services' is contained in St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 2, § 5, as amended by St. 1914, c. 708, § 1. The word ‘furnish’asused in the statute was defined by this court in Panasuk's Case, 217 Mass. 589, at page 193,105 N. E. 368, at page 369, as meaning ‘something...