Document B5MGK5qpgaBOMgwXgbn0VGv48

.yyv N TER-O FFIC E CORRESPONDENCE E t f iY i, Ga s o l i n e Co r p o r a t i o n )%mk Ch r y s l e r Bu il d in g IIP 1 3 5 Ea s t 4 2 n d S t r e e t NEWYORK July 9, 1951. Dr. Willard F Machie, .. ! Dear Dr. Machie: Mr. Robinson of the duPont Company has sent us the enclosed clipping from the Hew York Times regarding a case of alleged lead poisoning. This is not signed1but only initialed and I doubt if we will be able to trace it. I am wondering, however, if it ties tip with any of the cases that have been reported to you. If so, I would like to have your advice on this matter so that we may give further consideration to the article. reply Will you please return the clipping with your KB 00120.5 r ' ' ' ' ... "Copy" Clipping from the Hew York Times, July 2, 1931 COMPENSATION LAW FALUTS To the Editor of The New York Times: I was very much interested in one of your editorial remarks some days ago about occupational diseases and the compensa tion law. It may he of Interest to you to know that the law does not always operate in the interest of the worker. The following case, which occurred only yesterday, and in which I acted as a wit ness, will serve as an illustration. - In 1925 a garage foreman began to complain of severe headaches and weakness, which progressed gradually so that in 1927 he was forced to give up his work. The weakness became, in the course of time, a paralysis of the upper and lower extremities, and since that time the man has been a semi- invalid. The physi cians treating him made various diagnoses, but none did sufficient laboratory work actually to determine the exact nature of the m a n fs illness. In September of last year I, admitted the patient to the hospital, and careful examination revealed that h e 1was suffering from lead poisoning due to the inhalation of the fumes from the new kinds of gasoline so prevalent in the garage.- The man then put in a claim for compensation as suffering from an occupational disease. Let us keep in mind that in this case we cannot apply the saying ''ignorance of the law does not excuse." The man was not qware of the nature of his illness, and his not filing a claim within the period specified b y law was not due to negligence or ignorance of the law. The claim was rejected because the law requires that a compensation claim be filed within a specified period. -' May I call your attention to the fact that the pur pose of the compensation lav/ was entirely defeated in this case? The State Insurance Fund appeared in the role of defendant, my patient in the role of plaintiff, whereas the purpose of the com pensation law Is not to make the one a defendant and the other a plaintiff, but to act in a conciliatory manner so that the State Insurance Fund would appear as a protector of the claimant. We do not deal with plaintiffs but with claimants. The worker does not sue for compensation. He only asks for an award, and thS attorney for the State Insurance Fund should not have appeared for the purpose of fighting a case by raising all the technicalities of the law, but should have appeared for the purpose of interpre ting the law in the interest of the worker. 0012021 L Gr