Document 50JG5em8rqJd0wMrkbdJ9avpN

/ ( -1 j I | [ I ; .i I ,j Industrial Hygiene Digest therefrom plaintiff filed his claim* The Medical Board made specific finding* as to ait i. Issues, particularly, the Important one, when in compliance with the atatute, It fount ef/ect that plaintiff was injuriously exposed to the haaards of an occupational disease >.such disease wai due to the nature of the occupation or process In which plaintiff was -,r.. ployed* It was conceded that plaintiff had been subjected to chrome dust and fumes :: * long period of lime. It was not diaputed that ht was permanently disabled* It was er.e: ,y. agreed by most of the medical experts that chrome products will irritate the lungs. doctors, in varying degrees, stated that plaintiff suffered from chronic ulcerative br<.r,c'..*.. and it pneumonitis* There was evidence--though there was also evidence to the eontr*.-. ..*7 dust disease au/ferad by plaintiff was due to the nature of the enr.r,i. .* *..*.*. .. r.+t cis of the disease actually exist. There was also evidence that oct .a t:u- chrome industry do exist and that pulmonary dust diseases are charset'.--., M\<Cpeculiar to chrome workers, but there was also evidence that U has not been <>-r:. established chat the rare and unusual combination of ailments which had disabled the pi was due to exposure to chrome fumes end dust. The court, therefore, felt that it mu*: . this case, as did the lower court, on the basis that there was some substantial or lc?;/., *, flcient evidence to support the finding of the Commission that the Medical Board was s shun it found that plaintiff had sustained a compensable occupational disease* Affirmed, Mutual Chemical Company v, Thurston. Maryland Court of Appeals. No* 154* Sepscn-.b, Term, 1959. March 17, 1960. -- Reproduced by permission from Workmen** Compensation Law Reports, publishes S. .... Copyright I960, Commerce Clearing House, Inc*, 4026 W* Peterson Ave*,.Chicago 4*.. 727 Occupational Diseases --Tenosynovitis--Insurer*# Liability--Date of Disability. Suit was brought by an employee against her employer and it# two successive in. urers for workmen's compensation for disability to each of her wrists and hands arising .... of and in the course of her employment. Plaintiff was employed as operator of a sewing machine and developed an occupational disease known as tenosynovitis from the constant strain on the muscles and tendons of her wrists and hands* The first "knots" in the tender.* developed in May, 1965, and recurred from time to time until May, 1958, and she was discharged on August 4, 1958, because of her permanent disability. The condition which > has is compensable under the occupational diseases statute but the question herein is which two successive insurers is liable to plaintiff* While the disability for which compensate . sought came into existence before May 2, 1958, while St. Pa^l was Insurer, the statutor) test for liability is when the employee was "last injuriously exposed to the haxards of the disease" and provides that the employer and its insurer, during the time of such exposure, "shall alone be liable therefore, without right to contribution from any prior employer or insurer". Thus the very purpose of the statute was to fix a clear and definite test for dcterminlng which employer end insurer wa liable. The proof shows that plaintiff was "last injuriously exposed to the hasards of the disease*1 during the period from May 2 to August 4. 1956, while Travelers was the insurer. So, by force of the statute, Travelers (the last tr.* surer) i* made solely liable to plaintiff* So much of the judgment of the lower court as a recovery to plaintiff against her employer is ufiirmct!, but so much as awarded her * re* covery a^aii.st Sc* Paul is reversed and judgment is here entered against Travelers. Tennessee Tcfr.ng Company v. Pnitur. Tyvnuhsee Supreme Court, April A, jubO. -- Reproduced!*} permission .(r6m Workmen's Compensation Law- Reports, publish**! '.> Copyright 1-i.C. Commerce Clearing House. Inc., 4i>25 V/, Peterson Ave,. Chicago 4n, ^26 New limohe ar.d Ar Pollution Control Rules and Regulations Enacted by Allegheny Counts. Legislation pertaining to smoke end air pollution control in Allegheny Counts became effective August !, 19 0. Article 13 which relates to rules and regnloticn* oJ rmore .md air pollution control consists of tnc followmi* sections: Purpose; Defin.ti`*:-.; Atr Pollution Control Aovlsory Committee--Declaration of Policy; Administration end Enforcement; General; Uailrtud Loromotites, Routs, nnrt Other Vehicles; Power Plants, jpK- : 0;: ' ........ ' I v/: ... .. >