Pecott v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1916 |
| Citation | 223 Mass. 546,112 N.E. 217 |
| Parties | PECOTT v. AMERICAN MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk county.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Jerry Pecott, employee, to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the Arlington Mills, employer, and the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company. Compensation was awarded in the sum of $50, and the award confirmed by the superior court, and the Insurance Company appeals. Reversed.
Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston, for appellant.
Cregg & Cregg, of Lawrence, for appellee.
The employee was injured Saturday, October 31, 1914, between half past eleven and twelve o'clock. As usual on Saturday, the mill closed at noon. In the afternoon, the pain from the injury became intense and he consulted Dr. Cregg, who advised an operation. Monday the employee made an attempt to notify his foreman of the injury, and failing in this, he left word by telephone with one of the office employees. Wednesday, November 4, 1914, he was operated on for hernia.
At the time the plaintiff was injured there were posted in the mill where he worked, printed notices informing employees that in case of injury Dr. Carl R. Moeckel or Dr. Howard L. Cushman was to be called, ‘bills of other physicians will not be paid by the insurance company.’ No attempt was made to notify these physicians of the injury, the employee making no effort to secure their services. Dr. Cregg performed the operation. It is agreed his charge is reasonable, the question is whether under these circumstances, the company is required by the Workman's Compensation Act to pay for the services of a physician not furnished by it, but selected by the employee.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the reasonable medical services required during the first two weeks after the injury, are to be furnished by the insurer; the duty of supplying medical aid being imposed upon the insurance company, with the obligation of paying therefor. The right to select the attending physician is given to it by the statute. It is evident, we think, that the Legislature, in passing this act, did not intend to give to the employee the privilege or right of selecting his own physician at the expense of the insurer. Under the amendment of 1914 (St. 1914, c. 708, § 1), where a physician other than the one provided, is called in case of an emergency, or for other justifiable cause, the insurer is required to pay for this service, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. A.C. White Lumber Co.
... ... Terry & Tench Co., Inc., 163 N.Y.S. 836; ... Pecott v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 223 ... Mass. 546, ... ...
-
Radil v. Morris & Co.
...centers, where Employers' Liability Acts with provisions similar to ours were in effect before our act was adopted. Pecott's Case, 223 Mass. 546, 112 N. E. 217;Keigher v. General Electric Co., 173 App. Div. 207, 158 N. Y. Supp. 939; Davidson's Case, 228 Mass. 257, 117 N. E. 310;In re McCask......
-
Radil v. Morris & Company
... ... Pecott's Case, 223 Mass. 546, ... [170 N.W. 364] ... 112 N.E ... ...
-
Gilbert v. Wire Goods Co.
...each room where employés worked, and they remained in position up to and including the date of the plaintiff's injuries. Pecott's Case, 223 Mass. 546, 549, 112 N. E. 217. Neither the plaintiff, nor her parent as her natural guardian, ever read the notices, or had knowledge of their contents......