Document 93VNQ8v6rbdzp19QbJ5xDEj57

8--Workmen's Compensation Insurance of efforts at reform This interest was further stimulated by the passage of the Bntish Com pensation Act of 1897 Early laws In 1902 Maryland passed an act providing for a cooperative accident insurance fund, this represented the first legislation embodying to any degree the compensation principle The scope of the act was restricted Benefits, which were quite meager, were provided only for fatal accidents Within three years, the courts declared the act unconstitutional In 1908, a Massachusetts act authorized estab lishment of private plans of compensation upon approval of the state board of concilia tion and arbitration This law had no prac tical significance, it was a dead letter from the start By 1908, there was still no workmen's com pensation act in the United States President Theodore Roosevelt, realizing the injustice, urged the passage of an act for federal em ployees m a message to Congress m January He pointed out that the burden of an accident fell upon the helpless man, his wife, and chil dren The President declared that this was "an outrage " Later m 1908, Congress passed a compensation act covering certain federal employees Though utterly inadequate, it was the first real compensation act passed in the United States During the next few years, agitation con tinued for state laws A law passed in Mon tana in 1909, applying to miners and laborers in coal mmes, was declared unconstitutional Nevertheless, many states appointed commis sions to investigate the feasibility of compen sation acts and to propose specific legislation The greater number of compensation acts were the result of these commissions' reports, all of which favored some form of compensa tion legislation, combined with recommenda tions from vanous private organizations Widespread agreement on the need for com pensation legislation unfortunately did not end all conflict over reform Interest groups clashed over specific bills and over questions of coverage, waiting periods, and state versus commercial insurance In 1910, New York became the first state to adopt a workmen's compensation act of general application which was compulsory for certain especially hazardous jobs, and optional for others None of the early state compen sation acts expressly covered occupational diseases Statutes which provided compensa tion for "injury" were frequently interpreted to include disability from disease, but those acts which limited compensability to "injury by accident" excluded occupational disease. All except Oregon's act required uncompen sated waiting periods of one to two weeks, several states provided retroactive payments after a prescribed period The 1911 Wisconsin workmen's compensa tion act was the first law to become and re main effective The laws of four other states (Nevada, New Jersey, California, and Wash ington) also became effective that year Al though 24 jurisdictions had enacted such leg islation by 1925, workmen's compensation was not provided in every state until Mississippi enacted its law in 1948 Current acts Today there are compensation acts m the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico In addition, the Federal Em ployees' Compensation Act covers the em ployees of the U S Government, and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Com pensation Act covers mantime workers, other than seamen, and workers in certain other groups This latter act provided compensa tion for workers in the "twilight zone" be tween ship and shore, since they were not covered under existing state compensation laws While economic changes and public policy have prompted mcreases in benefits and scope of the laws, the basic concepts have not under gone any radical changes Employers and labor are both dissatisfied with certain aspects of workmen's compensation Labor attacks the system for inadequate benefits, coverage limitations, and exclusion of many injuries, ill nesses, and disabilities that they consider jobrelated Employers are critical because the system covers some injuries and diseases they do not consider job-related and is costly rela tive to its apparent benefits Thus, while the early advocates of workmen's compensa tion conceived it as a simple, speedy, efficient, equitable remedy that would reduce litigation over industrial injuries, many doubt their hopes have been realized 174