John was a laborer in the Boston Navy Yard, and it was his duty to scale off lead-painted compartments on ships. He became incapacitated by "lead poisoning contracted in the course of his employment," and his superior officer certified that the injury was not due to negligence or misconduct. After John had suffered several weeks as a result of "painter's colic" and chronic lead poisoning, his claim was submitted. It was necessary to decide whether the law applies to disease due to the occupation. The solicitor declared:
"There is no such special provision made, and I can find nothing which would, in my judgment, justify its application to a case of lead poisoning or 'painter's colic.'"
The difficulties involved in legal technicalities become apparent. The following story, verbatim from the government report (page 201), about William Murray, who suffered with compressed air illness, strikingly illustrates the point:
"The claimant in this case is a laborer employed by the Reclamation Service, at Arizona shaft, Colorado River siphon. The claimant's duties required him to work in compressed air. In consequence, he was attacked with 'a severe case of bends,' which 'settled in nearly all parts of the body.' When originally presented the claim was disallowed on the ground that the bends is a disease, and diseases contracted in the course of employment as distinguished from injuries of an accidental nature are not within the operation of the compensation act. A reconsideration of this action 'with a view to the allowance of the claim, if the same is deemed to come within the letter of the statute as it seems to come within its spirit,' is now requested by the secretary of the interior, who writes that a refusal to approve this claim may cause a number of men to leave the work, as, on account of the bends, it is generally regarded as very hazardous."
And the former decision was reversed!
The solicitor has passed upon other cases of occupational disease, with some decidedly interesting results.
Mary A. Crellin was a folder of heavy paper at the Government Printing Office. Continuous strain upon her fingers and wrist caused a degeneration of the tendon sheath. A tumor or cystic growth developed. Mary was obliged to have it surgically removed. Then she thought the government, and not she, ought to stand the loss of wages due to her incapacity. This attracted attention. Said the medical officer of the Government Printing Office:
"This is the first case that I ever observed or noticed among folders, until I examined a number of skilled female laborers employed in this office upon the same vocation—that of folding sheets of paper—of which five presented a similar condition, but of such size as not to interfere with the manipulation of the hand."
The solicitor decided that in this tendon degeneration there was "no accidental element." It was "not due to injury." It was "due to excessive use" in the service of Uncle Sam. Mary's claim was denied.
Another case—a plate printer, J. B. Irving, who was on the night force in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. In the course of a night he printed 900 sheets, and as he handled each sheet he looked for a few seconds at a bright engraved plate which reflected into his eyes. One night last March the bureau tried out some new electric lights, and their use was continued three successive nights. Irving thereupon stopped work, and the doctor diagnosed his case as "Retinitis conjunctivitis, both eyes." He was unable to keep his eyes open in a bright light. After investigation, the solicitor decided that in this case compensation should be granted on the ground that the injury was not anticipated, nor was it the result of any slow accumulation of trifling injuries.