Sunstroke, which is known as a disease, is compensated under the act. The straining of the ligaments about the wrist, known as "synovitis of the wrist" and scheduled as a disease under the British act, has been compensated. "Vaccinia" from vaccination is compensated. A long-standing case of flat-foot was compensated, even though the use of a simple wedge made the injured one better than before.
John Sheeran, who contracted pneumonia due to exposure at the Soo Canal, was denied compensation. But J. B. Atkinson, who fell from a ladder and continued to work 181 days thereafter, until typhoid fever took him off within a week, "died by reason of his injury," because the fall "lowered his vitality, ... which rendered him peculiarly susceptible to typhoid infection, ... which resulted in his death."
The question may fairly be raised as to whether it is not a bit unfair to an administrative official to place him under the embarrassment of interpreting a statute so as to cover, for example, some but not all cases of industrial lead poisoning. Would it not be much better plainly to include occupational diseases in the law?
After more than four years of experience under the present law the government recently published the first official report upon its operation. Sixty-six closely printed pages of this report are devoted to embarrassing questions which have arisen because of claims arising out of occupational diseases. The administration in its awards has been as liberal as could be expected under the unfortunate legislative restrictions. The solicitor for the department has taken a keen interest in its operation. He has been faithful and alert. One of his most urgent recommendations for a change in the law is that it be extended to embrace occupational diseases.
The present federal law is known as the Workmen's Compensation Act of May 30, 1908, and is America's pioneer compensation law. It was a step forward, but only a step. Fortunately, state legislatures have not copied its main provisions, for they are totally inadequate. This federal law applies to only about one-third of our 350,000 civilian employees. It grants no relief for incapacity lasting less than fifteen days, it makes no provision for medical treatment, and one year's wages is the maximum benefit even for total blindness or death. In fact, the present law is so deficient that its original sponsors now waste no words in its defense, but frankly apologize for its shortcomings. "Not a revision," says one in a position to know, "but a new law is needed."
The draft of a new law, prepared after months of careful investigation of experience of this and all other compensation acts, and drafted with infinite care at the instigation of the Association for Labor Legislation, has been introduced in Congress by Senator Kern. Surely the United States should now provide for its own government employees incapacitated by industrial accidents and occupational diseases a system of safety and sanitation coupled with compensation at least equivalent to that furnished by the most progressive nations of the world. The bill now before Congress offers this immediate opportunity.
Nor can the state legislatures longer ignore the injustice of this arbitrary distinction between accidents and diseases due to the peculiar conditions of employment.
In a pamphlet on Industrial Diseases and Occupational Standards, published in May, 1910, the writer urged immediate consideration of this problem, and said:
"No intelligent person can go far in the study of compensation for industrial accidents without realizing that a logical consideration of the facts must lead likewise to compensation for industrial diseases."
Since then three momentous years have passed. One state after another is preparing to meet this problem, which becomes steadily more pressing. One of the three great national political parties now pledges itself to work unceasingly in state and nation for trade disease compensation. Wisconsin has the promise of relief in the political platform of the present administration; Ohio, by recent constitutional amendment, is prepared for action; Pennsylvania is following this example; several states, including Massachusetts and Michigan, by a liberal interpretation of present laws, are coquetting with the issue; New Hampshire has boldly introduced specific legislation on the subject.[7]