Fall River-E. S. Brown; Cherry & Webb; M. J. Doran; C. E. Gifford & Co.; David Morrison; The Steiger Company. Great Barrington-E. P. Hunt Company. Haverhill-Buckley's, Inc.; C. Emerson & Sons; Hanna Company; Leslie Dry Goods Company; Mitchell & Co.; Simonds & Adams. Holyoke S. Davis; MeAuslan & Wakelin Co.; A. Steiger. Lawrence John Bird & Sons; Boston Store; Cherry & Webb; Cross Dry Goods Company; Reid & Hughes Co.; Rhodes Specialty Store, Robertson Sutherland Company. Lowell-Bon Marche Dry Goods Company; J. L. Chalifoux Company; A. G. Pollard Company. Lynn-Besse-Rolfe Company; Burrows & Sanborn; W. Henry Hutchinson J. William Lovering; P. B. Magrane; Melville Company: T. W. Rogers; Spalding Dry Goods Company. : Malden-Hopkins-Blakeslee Company. Middleboro Whitman's Department Store. Kingston Whitman's Department Store. New Bedford-Cherry & Webb; Consolidated Dry Goods Company: J. E. Gendron; G. & L. Poisson; Star Store; Steiger, Dudgeon Company. Salem-Almy, Bigelow & Washburn; Dan A. Donahue; Work Box: William G. Webber. Springfield S. E. Bentley Company; D. H. Brigham & Co.; Crawford-Plummer Company; Dickieson & Co.; Forbes & Wallace; Haynes & Co.: S. S. Kresge Company; Charles E. Lynch; Meekins, Packard & Wheat, Inc.; Albert Steiger Company; Woman's Shop, Inc. Ware A. Bryson & Co. Westfield Austin Bros. Worcester Barnard, Sumner & Putnam Co.; Davis & Banister: Denholm & McKay Co.; Gross, Strauss Company; Richard Healy S. S. Kresge Company; S. Marcus; John MacInnes Company; B. T. Shuman Company; Ware Pratt Company. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD (Cases Heard by Arbitration Committees.) No. 2521 Claim of Levi Boothby, Employe of United States Cartridge Company, vs. London Guarantee & Accident Company, Ltd., for Cataracts. Finding for Insurer. Heard at Lowell, Jan. 10, 1915; Counsel, Thomas Mahoney for Employe, H. S. Avery for Insurer. Question: Whether or not the condition of cataracts from which the employe was suffering was due to his employment. Evidence: Employe testified that he worked nights in charge of an oil burner; was obliged to look at the fire every 10 or 15 minutes; this blinded his eyes for a minute or two; began to have trouble in February, and a doctor told him nothing could be done for his eyes; quit work March 17, 1915; had worn glasses 20 years. The impartial physician testified that cataracts are in the majority of cases due to old age; that in this case the trouble was caused by neither light, heat nor gas. Finding That the condition from which the employe is suffering has no causal relation to an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and his claim for compensation is, therefore, dismissed. JOSEPH A. PARKS, Chairman. FRANCIS R. MAHONEY for Employe (Dissents) No. 2530 Claim of Frank Iorio, Employe of Canada Atlantic & Plant Steamship Company, vs. Frankfort General Insurance Company, for Fracture of Rib. Finding for Insurer. Heard at Boston, Dec. 29, 1915; Counsel, Samuel Susser for Employe, H. R. Bygrave for Insurer. Question: As to duration of incapacity and payment of physician's bill. Evidence: Employe testified that he was employed as a longshoreman, and while trucking cargo July 3, 1915, he slipped from a gangplank, fracturing a rib; he was treated at the relief station and taken home; doctor called every day for 10 days, and continued visits for three or four weeks; he earned from $16 to $22 a week, being paid 30 cents an hour. Insurer's physician testified that employe had favored his side so much that he imagined it troubled him after he had really recovered. Employe's physician testified that the rib was healed in six weeks, but from that time the man suffered much pain and inability to walk; he thought he was able to work a week before Nov. 20, when he last saw him. Compensation was paid at $8 a week up to Oct. 2. Finding That incapacity continued from Oct. 2 to Oct. 30, 1915; that his average weekly wages for the preceding year were $15, and that compensation was due at $10 weekly, and that there is, therefore, due a total amount of $62; that there is due the physician from the insurer $16 for services during the first two weeks after the injury. The question raised by the employe that further remuneration is due for services after the first two weeks is left to be submitted to the board. DAVID T. DICKINSON, Chairman. VINCENT GARRO for Employe. JAMES O. PORTER for Insurer (Dissents). No. 933 Claim of Catherine, Widow of Nicholas Hackett, Employe of Boston Elevated Railway Company, vs. Massachusetts Employes' Insurance Association. Finding for Insurer. Heard at Boston, Sept. 17, Oct. 11 and Dec. 30, 1915; Counsel, W. J. Sullivan for Widow, J. W. Cronin for Insurer. Question: Whether the death of the employe on March 3, 1915, from diabetes was caused by an injury of Feb. 14, 1914, when he fell on the ice and injured his knee. Evidence: Members of the family of the deceased testified that previous to the injury his health had been good; never had a doctor, except for a previous injury to his left knee, as a result of which he used a cane; after this second accident he had diabetes; the fall jarred his system and he lay on the ground half an hour or more, the temperature being four degrees below zero, both heels were frost bitten and gangrene developed, which continued up to the time of his death; he left the hospital April 25, but never did any more work: on Aug. 5 he fell from a car and fractured his wrist. Medical opinion was to the effect that injury does not directly cause diabetes: that if a man were suffering from diabetes he would be more likely to contract gangrene from frost bite; that worry over possibility of losing his job would be more an aggravating cause of diabetes than the injury; that the disease probably ante-dated the injury. Comwas paid up to the time of death. pensation Finding: That the employe, aged 70 years, at and some time before the injury, had the disease known as diabetes; that his marked collapse began after the accident of Aug. 5, when he broke his wrist; that the insurer is not liable to compensation for the death. DAVID T. DICKINSON, Chairman. WILLIAM J. HOLBROOK, for Insurer. No. 2482-Claim of Alice E., Widow of Emory N. Stacy, Employe Question: Whether employe's death from blood poisoning, June 24, 1915, was the result of an injury in course of employment. Evidence: Claimant testified that her husband, who was a night watchman, ran into a pipe which had been left in a machine, injuring his ribs; pleurisy resulted, bringing on a general debilitated condition, causing a carbuncle, from which the fatal septicemia developed; he had had a boil on his neck a year before, but had no medical attendance; compensation was paid for the injury to the ribs until he went to work again. Medical opinion was to the effect that death was not the result of the injury, nor was the carbuncle the result of the injury. Finding: That the claimant has not sustained the burden of proof that death was the result of the injury; evidence which merely raises a suspicion or surmise is not enough, the claim for compensation is dismissed. FRANK J. DONAHUE, Chairman. WILLIAM H. ROSE, for Insurer. JOHN H. MATHEWS, for Widow. No. 2556 Claim of John H. McCarthy vs. Commonwealth for Injury to Leg. Claim Dismissed. Heard at Boston, Jan. 17, 1916; Counsel, C. W. Mulcahy for Commonwealth. Questions: Whether or not the employe sustained an injury in course of employment, and whether or not, being a foreman, he was a "laborer, workman or mechanic" within the meaning of the act. Evidence: The claimant, an employe of the highway commission, working with a crew "putting pitch on the street," as he testified in August, 1915, tried to get on the roller, when he struck his leg against a tank; he said nothing about it at the time, but when he told the division engineer that he would have to lay off he was told there was no more work for him. He did not make claim for compensation until Nov. 8, as he "thought it would make no difference." The engineers in charge of the work testified that the claimant had made no report to them of any injury, and that he had been told two months before that his work was not satisfactory and that he would be through when that job was finished. Finding: That the employe has not sustained the burden of proof; the fact that he was about to sever his connection with the highway commission, coupled with the fact that he made no claim. for compensation until Nov. 8, nearly three months after the alleged injury, is significant. His claim for compensation is dismissed. JOSEPH A. PARKS, Chairman. WALTER S. HALIBURTON, for Employe. No. 2253 Claim of Dependents of Valerie Aleskerie (Deceased), Employe of Hotel Essex, vs. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. Claim Dismissed. Heard at Boston, Nov. 29, 1915, and Continued to Jan. 14, 1916; Continued Hearing Postponed at Request of Attorneys; J. F. Daly for Dependents, J. M. Morrison for Insurer. An agreement was submitted to the committee to the effect that counsel for the dependents and for employer and insurer had agreed that the death of Valerie Aleskerie was not caused by reason of the accident at Hotel Essex, nor was it due to any contract of employment, and that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. The committee, therefore, finds in accordance with this agreement and the claim for compensation is dismissed. FRANK J. DONAHUE, Chairman. DAVID J. MALONEY, for Insurer. No. 2550 Claim of Carl Hauer, Employe of Hauer's French Question: Whether the injury arose out of and in course of employment. Evidence: Employe testified that he left his work to go to the toilet-from the first to the second floor; he used an elevator, and the door got out of order so he knelt down to fix the door; while |