Document b5mqYRzjqe2y2gbGo4BekvaxO

FILE NAME: Saranac 7th Symposium (SSY) DATE: 1952 DOC#: SSY047 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Transcript of Mr. Sayer Discussing Talk by Mr. Waters Discussion by Henry D. Bayer at the Seventh Saranac Symposium held at The Saranac Laboratory, Saranac Lake, Dev York, os September 25# 1952 Mr. Waters opened his discourse by Identifying himself as to his activities. So, I may also say that, vhile I as of the Insurance industry, I am not speaking here as an insurance man or as voicing the views of any particular group of the Industry. On the contrary, may I say that I have been identified for nearly forty years, in numerous capacities, in the administration or working out of problems in workmen's compensation. X was appointed by the Governor as a member of the Industrial Commission and entered upon the administration of that lav in 1915i before the lav had been a year os the statute books. Ever since that time, X have maintained a contact of some kind and an extreme Interest in the system of workmen's compensation. What I say here today, therefore, is borne out of an intimate association with the compensation lav and an extreme interest in it. Thus X speak for no particular group. Mr. Waters referred to the tvo-fold liability of the employer to pay compensation for dust diseases: one, the liability imposed by the commor. lav, end tvo, thatiposed by vorkmen's compensation lavs. That is entirely proper, for we should understand the nature of the differences in the tvo systems. I think in this discussion of the legal aspects of the problem, ve should keep definitely in mind the liability imposed by vorkmen's compensation lavs, first because some of those lavs are compulsory, as for instance Nev York's, and the others are elective, but vith such penalty for non-election that they may be regarded as practically compulsory. He has rightly pointed to the common lav defences to any action under employer's liability, among vhich is the assumption of risk. Silicosie and asbestosi6 are characteristic recetved f.h.h&s _ r - 2- D A T E : - J m i' m M.E.M risks of employment in dust of either substance, and vlth that risk it . has been assumed, in the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary, that the employee under the eonaon lav in effeet waived any right . of recovery of damages due to such cause. That brings us right back to workmen's compensation lavs, much of the argument for which vae the hardship and injustice due to the archaic common lav defences. Damages were a characteristic of actions at lav under the common lev; compensation for loss of earnings or earning capacity is the outstanding fact of statutory workmen's compensation lavs. When, therefore, we speak of partial disability resulting from dust, where no loss of earnings is yet involved, ve are really speaking of damages as distinguished from compensation for disability. There are many implications involved in such thinking. Can ve have a system based in largest part upon disability compensation and at the same time partly based upon damages, without the danger of breaking down the system ve have so carefully erected over the years? If ve yield to the arguments of those vho would compensate for non-diaabling silicosis, vhere will ve stop in the matter of compensating for conditions not related to earnings or earning capacity? Be assured that once that point is yielded, you will experience great difficulty in preserving the compensation system. The compensation system was arrived at clearly by the acceptance by employers of a liability limited by the terms of the lav itself end based without regard to fault as a cause, while at the same time the employers in effect yielded to a liability as certain as deylight. But while assuming such e certain and limited liability, the employer yielded up his former right of having his negligence proved before there could be eny recovery, end permitted the abrogation of hie ancient common lav defences of fellow- RECEIVED F.H.H&S .5 . DATE:, JUL 3 1 m M.E.M l e n u t ' i negligence, assumption of the inherent risks of the employment, and the defence of contributory negligence. While accepting the liability of the compensation lav, he aeaumed, aa he bad a right, that the burden of coat of the compensation system vould not be ao great as to drive him out of business. Mr. Waters very clearly aet forth hia conclusions relative to . disability, aince this present session is devoted to the consideration of that aspect. Be cited the different concepts of disability, as set forth in the statutes of different states. It is important, I think, to keep in mind Just vhat ve seen by disability. I should like to point out that the early basis for all compensation vas disability, that is, inability to work and earn wages. To be compensable, only those disabilities that were due to accident arising out of and in the course of employment were compensable in nearly all the states where compensation was the lev. It had to have relationship to earnings. Consider for a moment, if you will, that all compensation vas for a period of time. That period had relation to the inability to work and earn. Then, too, the measure of compensation was the wages of the injured man at the time of the accident or, a6 in Eev York, for one year prior to the accident. Why w4s wages the standard measure for compensation benefits? Solely because that vas vhat be lost. The compensa tion rate measures the relation to the injured person; the length of time of the payment of benefits measures the seriousness of the injury, representing usually the period of time the man vas unable to vork. Mr. Waters has told us of the lav and its administration in the State of West Virginia. Ee tells you that the lev vorks veil end is commended by both the employees and the employers. I cannot believe that such a lev be he refers to vould meet the increasing demand in Kev York for compensation for partial disability from silicosis. RECEIVED F.H.HSS DATE: 'K H ; 117; M .E .M 510-1 I doubt that it la any solution to the problem. Ee tells us that for first-stage silicosis, the State Fund pays $1,000. Why? First-stage is where the earliest detectable signs of the disease are found, but with no effect on the working capacity. Is $1,000 needed for that man's relief? I doubt it. Is it any compensation for the man to be officially declared to be a silicotic? Is the certain knowledge that is brought home to this man worth $1,000? Will it "tide him over the hump" till he gets established in some other occupation? If be is a coal miner in Vest Virginia, it is not going to be easy for him to get any other kind of remunerative work that will maintain his and his family at least not in that mountainous and coal-producing State. Does he perhaps take his $1,000 and travel to another State and get a Job as a coal miner? For the second stage, where capacity for work is or has been impaired, the Fund will pay $2,000. I should expect that there would be few claims indeed for the first stage, the worker preferring to wait for the double rate, or try to make his case appear to be a $2,000 eaee. Eere again what, if any, economic advantage is it to the silicotic worker? I can see none; but I can see where it might be an advantage to the coal producer to have his liability to that man fully discharged by hie acceptance of the meagre compensation for either first or second degree silicosis.