Kovaliski v. Collins Co.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1925
• Citation: 102 Conn. 6,128 A. 288
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KOVALISKI v. COLLINS CO. ET AL.

128 A. 288

102 Conn. 6

KOVALISKI v. COLLINS CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 23, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Valentine Kovaliski, employee (John A. Reeve, executor) opposed by the Collins Company, employer, and another. From judgment of the superior court affirming the Compensation Commissioner's award of compensation, opponents appeal. No error.

The finding of the Commissioner is to the following effect:

From 1898 until some time in October, 1921, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in wet grinding. " Grinding" in the employer-respondent's plant is a term used to describe the process of removing on a revolving stone the rough surfaces and edges of axes and other tools there manufactured. It is of two classes: " Wet" and " dry." In wet grinding the operator sits upon what is known as a " pony" astride of a revolving stone from 72 to 80 inches in diameter. Water is constantly fed to the surface of the stone by a pipe, and the tool which is being ground is held against the revolving surface of the wheel by the weight of the workman. Water, laden with minute particles of grindstone and steel, is constantly splashed upon the operator's legs, body, and chest, and the gritty matter is taken into the lungs through the nose and mouth. The lodgment in the lungs of these particles produces a disease known as " pneumoconiosis," which is a general term describing either " siderosis" (fibrosis of the lungs caused by particles of steel), or " chalicosis" (fibrosis of the lungs caused by particles of stone). Pneumoconiosis in the form in which it appears in the employer-respondent's plant results sooner or later in almost certain death. Pneumoconiosis is not a disease of a contagious, communicable, or mental nature. It is a disease peculiar to the occupation of grinding. Pneumoconiosis in its final stages assumes various forms such as (a) necrosis without secondary infection; (b) staphylococcus and streptococcus infection (that form of infection usually occurring after an ordinary traumatism which has not been properly dressed), or (c) infection from tubercle bacilli. This latter is called grinder's consumption. The claimant received a personal injury consisting of pneumoconiosis caused in the manner hereinbefore described, which has developed into a mixed infection of a tubercular, staphylococcic, and streptococcic nature.

Richard H. Phillips and Thomas Hewes, both of Hartford, for appellants.

Edward J. Myers, of Hartford, for appellee.

CURTIS, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The reasons of appeal in so far as they involve applications for changes in the finding relate to matters which are either immaterial to the decision of the case, or not supported by the evidence. They are therefore overruled.

The substance of defendants' claim is that the plaintiff now has the grinders' consumption, which has incapacitated him, and that it is a form of tuberculosis, and that tuberculosis is a contagious or communicable disease; hence that this disease as a basis of recovery is barred by the terms of the so-called occupational disease amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

These amendments read in part as follows:

Section 1, chapter 306, Public Acts 1921:

" If an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment, it shall be no bar to a claim for compensation that it cannot be traced to a definite occurrence which can be located in point of time and place."

And section 11, chapter 306, Public Acts 1921:

" The word ‘ injury’ as the same is used in said chapter shall be construed to include any disease which is due to causes peculiar to the occupation and which is not of a contagious, communicable or mental nature."

Before the commissioner and the court, the plaintiff claimed the right to compensation for a compensable injury causing incapacity which he claims arose in the course of and out of his employment. The plaintiff's claim is not limited by any pleading in which he has defined the injury by name or otherwise. The question is simply whether the facts found disclose a compensable injury under our Compensation Act.

In view of the facts found, it is apparent that the plaintiff has received an injury in his employment, which " cannot be traced to a definite occurrence which...