Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 45
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
STATUTES RELATING TO MINING OPERATIONS.
on him for support under the Indiana workmen's compensation act,
and if the mother received all the earnings of the deceased son, she
is entitled to the same compensation as a total dependent would be.
Bloomington Bedford Stone Co. v. Phillips (Indiana App.), 116 Northeastern 850,
INJURY AGGRAVATING DISEASE-COMPENSATION.
The Illinois workmen's compensation act (Hurd's Rev. Stats.
1913, ch. 48), provides among other things that where an injury has
been sustained the employee as a result thereof becomes partly
incapacitated from pursuing his usual employment he shall be
entitled to compensation at the specified rate. The previous physi-
cal condition of the employee is unimportant so long as the injury
sustained is the proximate cause of the incapacity for which compen-
sation is sought. The protection afforded is not confined to healthy
employees. It is the injury arising out of the employment and
not out of the disease of the employee for which compensation is
made. It is the hazards of the employment acting upon the partic-
ular employee, not his condition of health, and not what the hazards
would be in acting upon a healthy employee. An employee may be
suffering from some ailment and the exertion of the employment or
the injury may develop his condition in such a manner that it be-
comes a personal injury and he is entitled to recover for all the con-
sequences attributable to the injury. The augmenting or aggravat-
ing of a preexisting ailment may therefore be a personal injury
within the workmen's compensation act.
Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co. v. Industrial Board, etc., (Illinois) 116 Northeastern
INCREASED DISABILITY-RIGHT TO REVIEW.
It was not the intention of the Illinois workmen's compensation
act (Hurd's Rev. Stats. 1915-16, ch. 48), to defeat a recovery be-
cause of any inaccuracy or technical defect in the form of the notice
where a disibility for which the employee has received compensation
has recurred or increased. The employee may without previous
notice, but within 18 months from the time of the agreement or
award, petition for a review under the original section 19h (sec. 144).
On such review the petitioner must produce in evidence the record
of the former hearing as this is essential to the review and it is error
to receive evidence as if the hearing were an original one. On such
review or rehearing, the injured employee can only be permitted to
show the changes in his condition since the former hearing.
Casparis Stone Co. v. Industrial Board, etc. (Illinois), 115 Northeastern 822, p. 824.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/59/: accessed October 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.