Johnson v. London Guarantee & Acc. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1914
• Citation: 217 Mass. 388,104 N.E. 735
• Parties: JOHNSON v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO, Limited.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 388

104 N.E. 735

JOHNSON v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO, Limited.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 4, 1914

COUNSEL

H. S Avery, of Boston, for appellant.

Wm. F Merritt and N. Thos. Merritt, Jr., both of Boston, for appellee.

OPINION

CROSBY J.

This case arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act (St 1911, c. 751, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571).

The Industrial Accident Board has found that the employé, since March 13, 1913, has been totally incapacitated from labor because of his physical condition, due to the results of lead poisoning or plumbism, and that this is an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employé is 72 years of age, and was employed as a lead grinder continuously for a period of more than 20 years before the date given above, March 13, 1913. The board further found that he had suffered from lead poisoning 14 years before but apparently had recovered and had had no recurrence of the disease until he became ill and was totally incapacitated from work on or about March 13, 1913.

It further appears from the report of the board that he had been 'for 20 years absorbing lead poisoning during his occupation, which had been stored up in his system, and which absorption continued for 8 months after the act went into effect, when, elimination failing, the poison stored up manifested itself in the personal injury and the incapacity which resulted therefrom.'

The decision of the board upon all questions of fact being final if there is any evidence to support them, the question is whether the evidence authorizes the findings. Pigeon's Case, 216 Mass. 51, 102 N.E. 932.

The main inquiries raised by the appeal are: (1) Has the employé suffered a personal injury within the meaning of the act? (2) If so, what was the date of the injury? (3) If the date of the injury was subsequent to July 1, 1912, did it arise out of and in the course of his employment?

1. Under the act, 'personal injury' is not limited to injuries caused by external violence, physical force, or as the result of accident in the sense in which that word is commonly used and understood, but under the statute is to be given a much broader and more liberal meaning, and includes any bodily injury. In this respect the English Workmen's Compensation Act differs from ours, because that act applies only to 'personal injury by accident'; yet since the passage of that act its scope has been much enlarged by including certain industrial diseases (Third Schedule, 6 Edward VII, c. 58); although under the English act it has been held in many cases that the words 'personal injury by accident' are not limited to injuries caused by violence, but include disease incurred by accident.

Aside from the decisions under the English act which provides for compensation for 'personal injuries by accident,' it is clear that 'personal injury' under our act includes any injury or disease which arises out of and in the course of the employment, which causes incapacity for work and thereby impairs the ability of the employé for earning wages. The case of Hood & Sons v. Maryland Casualty Co., 206 Mass. 223, 92 N.E. 329, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1192, 138 Am. St. Rep. 379, is decisive of the case at bar. In that case it...