Preview

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE

STUDIES AND REPORTS
Series M (Social Insurance) No. 5

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
IN THE

UNITED STATES
By

RALPH H. BLANCHARD, Ph.D.
Columbia University

GENEVA
1926

PREFACE
The analysis of workmen's compensation legislation in the
United States is limited to a consideration of its principal features.
The time and resources allowed for the preparation of the report
made impossible the original investigation which would be r e quired for an adequate study of the subject. No attempt has
been made, therefore, to cover the operation of workmen's compensation, and it has been necessary to omit certain items of
legislation.
Reliance has been placed largely on secondary sources, which
are reasonably complete and accurate for purposes of an analysis
of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Acts ; but complete
or accurate statistics pertaining to workmen's compensation are
nowhere collected for the country as a whole; nor are they, in most
cases, available for individual jurisdictions. Attempts to secure
information have made clear the need of further improvements
in statistical procedure and of a central agency for collating and
analysing such statistics for the entire country.

CONTENTS
"

INTRODUCTION

Page
7

CHAPTER I : Constitutionality

CHAPTER II : Scope 'wrvd Appßaation.
§ 1. — Compulsory and "Elective Laws
§2. — (Employments and Persons Covered
§3. — Injuries Covered

20
24
28

CHAPTER III :

Benefits.

% 1. — Basic Wages
Composition
Computation
§ 2. — Waiting Period
§ 3. — Scale of Compensation
Disability
Death
¿Limits of Compensation
§ 4. — Commutation of P a y m e n t s
§5. — Medical and Surgical .Benefits
Periods and Costs
Rehabilitation
CHAPTER IV : Sacwràity <af Conüpens-Oition Vu/ymeniis.
§1. — Types of Insurers
§ 2. — Obligation of the Insurer
§ 3. — Competition
§4. — Solvency
§5. — Rates of P r e m i u m

30
30
31
32
34
34
38
43
48
50
50
51
54
57
59
61
61

CHAPTER V : Administration. and Settlement of Disputes.
§ 1 . — Administrative and Judicial Authorities . . .
. 6 4
§ 2. — Administrative Functions, Personnel, and Expenses
of Commissions and (Funds
66
Functions and Work of Commissions
67
Personnel and Expenses
68
Salaries of Commissioners and Employees . . . .
71
§ 3. — Statistics
73
CHAPTER VI : Tendencies

Appendix

l. — Number of Persons Sufojeet to Compensation Acts

Appendix 11. — Provisions of iLaws governing Specified Occupational Diseases or Processes

Appendix

111. — Comparative Benefit Costs . . .

INTRODUCTION

Attempts of employees to collect damages from their employers
on account of industrial injuries gave rise, in the early nineteenth
century, to the legal system of employers' liability, an application
of the common daw of negligence to the relation of master and
servant. Under this system the employer was, in general, liable
for damages if an employee was injured as a result of the employer's failure to use due care in the performance of his duties.
The duties have been stated and explained a s follows :
1. To employ svitcible fellow servants : The master must "use
reasonable care in selecting suitable and sufficient coservants".
2. To establish and promulgate proper rules : The nature of the
rules required is determined by the character of the business, some employments requiring no rules. "Ordinary diligence" in establishing and enforcing rules is sufficient.
3. To provide a safe place to work : "It is the master's duty to
exercise reasonable care in furnishing those things which
go to make up the plant and lapplianoes, so as to have them
at the outset reasonably safe ior the work of the servants
who are engaged in the general employment, and, further,
to exercise a reasonable care, by means of inspection and
repairs, when needed, to keep the pliant and appliances
reasonably isafe".
4. To furnish safe appliances.
5. To warn of danger : The master must warn his servants and
give them suitable instructions where he knows that the
employment is dangerous or would discover it with due
care, and where he has reason to believe that the servant
does not know of the danger and. would not discover it.
The master's duty is to do "what a prudent master would
naturally do".
If the master has properly performed all of these duties he cannot
be held liable for injuries to a servant arising "out of and in the
course of his employment". The test of performance in each instance
is relative ; there must be a reasonable compliance with the duty,
taking into consideration the circumstances, the nature of the business,
and the usual methods of conducting it. "Reasonably safe means safe
according to the usages, habits and ordinary risks of the business."

— 8 —
In no case is the 'master deemed to be a guarantor of the safety of
his employees ; his duty extends only to the exercise of proper diligence.
These duties are, however, personal and the master cannot relieve
himself of responsibility for their performance by delegating them to
another 1.
I n addition to attempting to prove that the allegation of the
employee was untrue, the employer relied principally on three
defences to avoid liability for industrial injuries. These were the
doctrine of assumption of risk, the doctrine of common employment
or the fellow-servant rule, a n d the doctrine of contributory negligence. The first two of these doctrines were clearly stated in an
early opinion in a suit brought by a locomotive engineer to recover
damages on account of a n injury arising from the neglect of a
switchman.
^—The general rule, resulting from considerations as well of justice as of policy, is that he who engages in the employment of another
for the performance of specified duties and services, far compensation,
takes upon himself the natural and ordinary risks and perils incident
to the performance of such services, and in legal presumption the
compensation is adjusted accordingly.
And we are not aware of
any principle which should except the perils arising from the carelessness and negligence of those who are in the same employment.
I'hese are perils which the servant is as likely to know, and against
which he can as effectually guard, as the master. They are perils
incident to the service, and which can be as distinctly foreseen and
provided for in the rate of compensation as any others 2.
Under the doctrine of contributory negligence in its extreme
form, recovery was denied if t h e employee himself to any degree
contributed to the occurrence of the injury.
These defences, the placing of the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and the superior resources, legal and financial, of employers, resulted in almost complete immunity from payment.
With the development of factory employment and its attendant
dangers, and with the aggregation of large numbers of workmen
whose relations to their employers Avere of an impersonal] sort,
the injustice of the situation was recognised. Attempts were made
to modify the employers' liability system through judicial interpretation and through statutory enactment. Individual features
of the system were made the subject of remedial legislation and
1
Ralph H. BiLANCHABD : Liability and Compensation Insurance,
'New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1017, pp. 43-45. -Based on
BURDICK : Law of Torts, 3rd ed., pp. 184 ft'., Albany, N.Y., Banks and
Company, 1913.
2
Farwell v. Boston and Worcester R.R. Corp., 38 Am. Beds. 339
(1842).

— 9 —
so-caiLted Employers' Liability Acts were adopted by various States.
The first of these general Acts, based on the English statute, w a s
enacted in Alabama in 1885.
As a result of this legislative activity there was developed a.
new branch of insurance to meet the increased hazard to which
employers were subjected, known as employers' ¡liability insurance.
Under the employers' liability insurance contract it was the function of the insurance company to attempt to reduce the payment
of damages to the lowest possible point. These activities served
to make more clear the unfortunate situation of injured workmen,
for the relief which it was expected would be secured under theEmployers' Liability Acts proved to be illusory. The tendency of
legislation dealing with the employers' liability system, as it
appeared in 1912, is well stated in the following quotation :
The trend of recent ¡legislation and attempted legislation throughout the country, until the introduction of so-called compensation laws,.
has been to make the master liable for all accidents that arise in the
busiiiess, due to negligence of anyone in his service; to change the
burden of proof so as to require the master, where defects exist, toshow that there was no negligence, and also to change the trardsn
of proof so as to require the master to show that the injured employee
was negligent ; to remove all limits whatsoever that exist upon his
liability, leaving him open to such damages as the juries may seefit to assess without any certainty, of what such damages may cost
him at any moment ; to require all questions of negligence to be left
to the jury ; to prohibit any contracting out of such liability ; and
to increase the body of law aimed directly at preventing accident.
Verdicts have been growing in amount until some have become greatly
excessive, though others are inadequate1.
I n spite of the attempts of the law-makers to bring the
employers' liability system abreast of the industrial situation, it
became increasingly clear that the development of industry a n d of
the industrial accident problem, as well a s the development of
knowledge of the problem and interest in it, were proceeding at
a more rapid pace. As a result, the defects of the system were
brought clearly into the light. These defects have been s u m m a r ised as follows :
1. It is wasteful :
(a) The State expends a large amount in fruitless litigation.
(b) Employers spend a large amount, as the result of workaccidents, only a small part of which is actually paid in
settlement of accident claims.
1
Report of the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation
Commission. Senate Document No. 338 (62nd 'Cong., 2nd Sess.), Vol. I,
p. 85.

— 10 —
(c) The injured «employees spend nearly half of what they get
in settlements and damages to pay the costs of fighting
for them.
2. It is slow ; recovery is long delayed, while the need is immediate.
3. It fosters misunderstanding and bitterness between employer
and employees.
•i. It encourages both parties to dishonest methods. *
It came to toe realised, as it had already been realised in
European countries, that nothing short of a revolutionary change
in the attitude toward industrial injuries was necessary. With the
European example before them, governmental experts a n d others
interested in the problem turned to a study of workmen's compensation. The first definite evidence of interest in this subject was
the publication, in 1893, by the United States Department of
Labour, of a special report by Dr. John Graham Brooks on compulsory insurance in Germany. Five years later the first Workmen's Compensation Bill to be brought forward in the United
States was introduced in the Senate of the State of New York.
This Bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate
of that State, but was never reported for action.
In the first decade of the twentieth century interest in workmen's compensation was genuinely awakened.
Several commissions made investigations of the industrial accident problem
a n d of compensation as a solution. Numerous publications dealing
with this topic were issued. Workmen's compensation laws were
passed in five jurisdictions : Maryland (1902) ; Massachusetts
(1908) ; United States (1908) ; Montana (1909), and New York
{1910, two laws). All of these laws were very much limited in
scope and 'Certain of them were entirely voluntary. They were
ineffective — some because declared unconstitutional by the courts,
others because of their voluntary basis. They merely furnish
evidence of a tmeasure of real interest in workmen's compensation. The Federal Act, though highly limited in its application
a n d in the benefits which it furnished, was the first real Compensation Act to be adopted in the United States. It was later
superseded by t h e Act of 1916.
As a result of the activities of the previous ten years there
were passed, i n 1911, 10 compensation laws : two in Pacific Coast
States, one in a Rocky Mountain State, four in the Middle West,
1

EASTMAN : Work Accidents and the Law, p. 206.
Rüssel Sage Foundation, 1910.

New York,

— 11 —
and three in the eastern section of the country. It is significant
that these expressions of a conviction that the old employers' liability system should be superseded were not confined to one section
of the country, nor to the industrial States. Three more laws
were passed in 1912, eight in 1913, two in 1914, 10 in 1915. Twelve
Acts have been adopted since 1915, making a total of 46 Workmen's Compensation Acts in the United States. Forty-two of
the States, three Territories, and the Federal Government now
have such Acts. Six States — Arkansas, Florida, Mississipi, Missouri, North Carolina and South Carolina — have no Acts, nor
has the District of Columbia. Maritime employments — for
example, the work of seamen — falling under the jurisdiction of
the admiralty courts, and employment in interstate commerce, as,
for example, on the railroad systems of the country, are also not
covered by compensation laws.
The following table indicates the years of enactment of the
original compensation laws in the various jurisdictions and the
gradual acceptance of the principle :
YEARS OF ENACTMENT OF ORIGINAL COMPENSATION

Year

enacted

Total
numfcerot
laws

1908
1911

1
10

1
11

1912
1913

3
8

1914
1915

2
10

24
34

1916
1917

2
5

36
41

1918
1919
1920

1
3
1

42
45
46

14 .
22

LAWS

Jurisdictions
United States.
California, 1 Illinois1, Kansas 1 , Massachusetts , Nevada, New Hampshire 1 , New Jersey, Ohio1, Washington, Wisconsin.
Arizona, Michigan,
Rhode Island.
1
Connecticut
, Iowa 1 , 1 Minnesota,
Ne1
braska , New York , Oregon1, Texas,
West Virginia.
Louisiana 1 , Maryland.
Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana,
Maine1, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania 1 , Vermont, Wyoming.
Kentucky.
Porto Rico.
Delaware 1 , Idaho 1 , New Mexico, South
Dakota, Utah.
Virginia 1.1
Alabama1 , North Dakota, Tennessee.
Georgia .

Effective in following year.

At no stage was the development of workmen's compensation
in the United States confined to any one section of the country,
as may be seen by reference to the map on page 12. The southeastern section, however, has been the slowest to adopt the prin-

Compulsory
Elective
No law

Compulsory and Elective Workmen's Compensation Acts in the United S

— 13 -•ciple. In the earlier stages of the development of workmen's compensation there was much controversy over the acceptance of the
general principle. But doubt has gradually disappeared, and it
may be said that the workmen's compensation principle is now
accepted as an essential part of the fabric of social legislation in
the United States. There still remains, however, extreme disagreement as to the manner in which the principle should be applied.
Under the United States Constitution compensation laws
applying to employees of the Federal Government, to employees
engaged in certain maritime employments and in interstate commerce, and to employees engaged in employments located in the
District of Columbia may be enacted only by the Federal Congress.
The present Federal law applies only to the first of these groups.
The State Governments alone have power to enact laws applying
to the other classes of employment within their several borders.
Under a general grant of legislative power to the Territories, they
likewise have power to pass workmen's compensation laws. This
situation has resulted in a wide diversity of laws and has made
the study of workmen's compensation in the United States a highly
complicated matter. The fact that a State or Territory has a compensation law does not necessarily indicate a wholehearted
acceptance of the principle. As will appear, a given law may be
of narrow or broad application, may represent a competent study
of the problems involved, or mere political expediency. It may be
niggardly or liberal. Out of this wide diversity of provision for
compensation few standards of legislation or of practice have
emerged which may be said to be representative of the United
States.

CHAPTER I
CONSTITUTIONALITY
The American constitutional system restricts somewhat the
freedom of legislative bodies in enacting compensation laws. The
Congress of the United States may enact no law contravening trie
Federal constitution. A State legislature may enact no daw contravening either the constitution of that State, or the Federal
constitution. The validity of a State law under the State constitution is finally decided by the State court of last resort. The
final decision on all questions involving the Federal constitution
resbs with the United States Supreme Court. The general principle of workmen's compensation has been attacked as in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal constitution, which
provides that "no person s h a l l . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law", and of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which provides that "no State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws". These provisions are repeated in substance in many State
constitutions. It has been urged that workmen's compensation
laws, in providing for the creation of a liability to pay compensation without regard to the personal fault of the employer and
without opportunity first to have the issue tried in the courts,
authorise the taking of property "without due process of law".
It was principally on the basis of this theory that the Court of
Appeals of New York declared unconstitutional the compulsory
law of that State in 1911 \
In the same year the Supreme Court of Washington upheld
the Washington Act 2 which went further than that of New York
by providing that employers were to contribute to a State insurance fund. The decision of the New York court was, in the later
opinion, definitely rejected.
1

431.

Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co., 94 North Eastern Reporter

State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, State Auditor, 117
Pacific Reporter 1101.

— 16 —
The New York constitution, having been amended to permit
the enactment of a compulsory Compensation Act, a new compulsory law was passed in that State in 1913. This law was brought
before the Supreme Court of the United States and was upheld in
a n opinion delivered in 1917 \ The attitude of the court is expressed in the following quotation from the opinion :
. . . there is the loss of earning power ; a loss of that which stands
to the employee as his capital in trade. This is a loss arising out of
the business, and, however it may be charged up, is an expense of the
operation, as truly as the cost of repairing broken machinery or any
other expense that ordinarily is paid by the employer. Who is to
bear the charge ? It is plain that, on grounds of natural justice,
it is not unreasonable for the State, while relieving the employer from
responsibility for damages measured by common law standards and
payable in cases where he or those for vahóse conduct he is answerable
are found to be at ifault, to require hkn to contribute a reasonable
amount, and according to a reasonable and definite scale, by way
of compensation for the loss of earning power incurred in the common enterprise, irrespective of the question of negligence, instead of
leaving the entire loss to rest where it may chance to fall—that is,
upon the injured employee or his dependants. Nor can it be deemed
arbitrary and unreasonable, from the standpoint of the employee's
interest, to supplant a system under which he assumed the entire
risk of injury in ordinary cases, and in, others had a right to recover
an amount more or less speculative upon proving facts of negligence
that often were difficult to prove, and substitute a system under
which in all ordinary cases of accidental injury he is sure of a "definite and easily ascertained compensation, not being obliged to assume
the entire loss in any case but in all cases assuming any loss beyond
the prescribed scale...
The pecuniary loss resulting from the employee's death or disablement must fall somewhere. It results from something done in the
course of an operation from which the employer expects to derive a
profit. In excluding the question of fault as a cause of the injury, the
Act in effect disregards the proximate cause and looks to one more
remote—the primary cause, as it may be deemed—and that is, the
employment itself. For this, both parties are responsible, since they
voluntarily engage in it as co-adventurers, with personal injury to
the employee as a probable and foreseen result. In ignoring any
possible negligence of the employee producing or contributing to the
injury, the law-maker reasonably may have been influenced by the
belief that in modern industry the utmost diligence in the employer's
service is in some degree inconsistent with adequate care on the part
of the employee for his own safety.
The constitutionality of the Washington statute was upheld in
another opinion rendered on the same day 2 . These opinions have
heen followed in subsequent cases.
1
2

New York Central Railroad Co. v. White, .243 U.S. .Reports 188.
Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, ¡U. iS. Report .2119.

— 17 —
Again, on the same day, the Supreme Court of the United
States passed on the validity of the elective Act of Iowa \ The
reasons adduced for sustaining the constitutionality of the compulsory Acts applied a fortiori to the elective Act. It was again
pointed out that the "employer has no vested right to have these
so-called common law defences perpetuated". These defences are
not incorporated in the constitution; they were developed by the
courts and are subject to modification or abrogation by legislative
bodies. In this case it was urged as before that the "due-process"
clause was violated by the denial of trial by jury, but the court
pointed out that this right was not guaranteed by the Federal
constitution. It also agreed with the State court in holding that
the provision for settlement of disputes by a specially created
administrator did not violate the "due-process" clause, since
ample provision was made for appeal to the courts.
These three leading cases, with others in which the same
fundamental view has been expressed, have established practically
beyond question the validity of the general principle of workmen's
compensation under the Federal constitution, whether expressed
in a compulsory or in an elective type of Act, and also of the
necessary specialised administrative machinery and requirements
for security of compensation payments.
Several States 2 have adopted amendments to their constitutions permitting their legislatures to enact compensation laws, in
two cases 3 prescribing the type of law to be enacted. In Oklahoma
the law provides no death benefits, as it is held that such provision
would be contrary to the constitution of that State.
An elective Act finds its raison d'être in the fear that a compulsory Act would be declared unconstitutional. Had the opinion
in the Ives case in New York supported the compulsory principle,
it is probable that little would have been heard of the elective idea.
That opinion was delivered by one of the most influential courts
in the United States at a time when workmen's compensation was
regarded as a radical innovation. Whether compulsory Acts
would now be upheld by the local courts in those States which
have elective Acts is uncertain. In many opinions upholding
these Acts their elective nature has been stressed, but it has not,
in most cases, been indicated whether it is essential.
1

Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. Reports 219.
Arizona, California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
and Wyoming.
3
Arizona and Wyoming.
2

— 18 —
Five entire Compensation Acts have been declared unconstitutional \ The Maryland Act of 1902, a limited and ineffective
statute applying to a few hazardous employments, was found to
be unconstitutional by the State courts since it vested judicial
powers in the commissioner, deprived workmen of a right formerly enforceable in the courts, and denied the right of trial by
jury. The Montana law of 1909, applying only to coal mining,
in requiring the employer to pay compensation, failed to abrogate
the employee's right to sue at common law. The decision of the
court declaring the Act invadid was based on this creation of a
double liability. The decision in the Ives case in New York has
already been explained. The first Kentucky law was declared
unconstitutional principally because, by assuming the acceptance
of the Act by an employee in the absence of explicit election, the
legislature was held practically to be compelling him to accept
the Act and therefore to be limiting damages recoverable on
account of death, the latter expressly forbidden by the Kentucky
constitution. It was also noted in the opinion that the Act made
no provision for appeal to the courts from decisions of the compensation board. In 1921 the Supreme Court of Arizona declared
unconstitutional an Act 'designed to replace the earlier Act of 1912,
since it failed to permit the employee to elect after injury whether
to accept compensation under the Act, or to sue for damages in
the courts, a right guaranteed by the constitution of Arizona. In
all other jurisdictions in which the constitutionality of Compensation Acts has been questioned the Acts have been upheld by
the courts.
Compensation Acts have frequently been attacked on the
ground that, in failing to cover all employments equally, they
deny to certain citizens "the equal protection of the laws". It
has been contended, for example, that the exclusion of farm labour,
the exclusion of employers with less than a given number of
employees, and the limitation of coverage to hazardous employments, were in violation of this principle. The courts have
generally upheld such discrimination as within the power of the
legislature.
Specific provisions of Compensation Acts have from time to
time been brought before the courts on constitutional grounds.
The provision requiring payments by employers to a special fund
in cases where there are no dependants, has been upheld in New
1

Maryland, Montana, New York, Kentucky, and Arizona.

— 19 —
York and Utah, and by the Supreme Court of the United States,
but has been found invalid in California, Kentucky, and New
Jersey. A provision of the New York law extending its benefits
to maritime workers has been declared inoperative by the United
States Supreme Court. In Louisiana a provision of the law requiring judges to determine whether an employer is financially
able to meet payments of compensation has been held to be contrary to the constitution of that State. In no case have these
difficulties been vital. Certain employees have been deprived of
the benefits of the Compensation Acts, and certain extensions of
the law have been made impossible, but the Acts as a whole have
not been affected.
It may be said that questions of constitutionality are no
longer serious obstacles in the progress of workmen's compensation legislation in the United States. It should be observed,
however, that the constitutional system makes for some degree of
inadaptability. In order to embody the compensation principle
in law in ail jurisdictions and to cover all classes of employees, it
will be necessary eventually to have at least 54 Workmen's Compensation Acts \

Eight Acts, in addition to the present 46 Acts, one in each of the
'six States now having no Workmen's Compensation Acts, one covering employments in the District of Columbia, and one covering employees in interstate commerce and maritime workers.

CHAPTER II
SCOPE A N D APPLICATION
§ 1. — Compulsory and Elective Laws
Workmen's Compensation Acts in the United States may be
broadly classified into two groups, compulsory a n d elective. A
compulsory Act is one which applies to all employments falling
within its terms, whether or not employers or employees desire
such application. Elective Acts are in form optional; that is,
employers or employees, or both, are given the privilege of determining whether they will choose to accept the obligations and
privileges of these Acts. In fact, these elective Acts involve a degree
of compulsion little less than that obtaining under compulsory
Acts, for failure t o accept is made the occasion of subjecting the
employer or the employee to highly disadvantageous conditions.
Many of the Acts which are elective as to private employments
a r e compulsory as to public employments.
In 21 of the 31 elective States, election is presumed in the absence
of active rejection, this presumption affecting both employer and
employee. In 10 States 1 the employer must take positive action, but if
he acts the employee's acceptance is presumed, except in Kentucky,
where he must sign an acceptance. In seven of these (Kentucky,
Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island), acceptances are filed with designated State authorities ; while
in the ether three (Massachusetts, Texas, and West Virginia) the act
of insuring signifies election.
Inducement to election is offered by the abrogation of the common-law defences where the employer rejects the law, and by continuing them in effect where a rejecting employee sues an employer who
has accepted it. Exceptions to this are the laws of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, which abrogate the defeaces absolutely, without regard
to the acceptance or rejection of the Act2.
In New Hampshire the employee may make his choice of remedy
after the injury has been received
The laws are compulsory in 14 States, neither employer nor
employee having the option of choosing another remedy, except in
Arizona, where a n injured workman or his survivors may choose to
sue. Suit is permitted in a number of States if the employer has
failed to insure or permits premiums to remain unpaid.
No law is of complete coverage, and the terms "elective" and
"compulsory" apply to the laws in regard to the occupations said to
be covered by the Acts. Employers in other occupations than those
1
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada.
New 3Hampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, ¡and West Virginia.
Lindley D. CLARK: Comparison of Workmen's
Compensation
Laws of the United States as of 4 January 4925. Bulletin No 379,United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, p. 6, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1925.

— 21 —
so classed as "covered" may generally accept the terms of the Acts, but
forfeit >no tdafenceis tby failure to .do so *.

In the following table the various jurisdictions are classified
in terms of <their application of the compulsory and elective principles:
T A B L E I. C O M P U L S O R Y A N D ELECTIVE W O R K M E N ' S C O M P E N S A T I O N A C T S
Compulsory
Private employments
(14 lawsl

Arizona l
California 3
Hawaii
Idaho3
Illinois 3
Maryland 3
New York 3
North3 Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Porto 3 Rico
Utah
Washington 3
Wyoming

Public employments
(31 laws;

California
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine 13
Maryland «
Massachusetts "
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
• Porto Rico
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia
Washington "
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States

elective
Private employments
(31 laws)

Public employments
(9 laws)

Alabama
Alabama 2
Alaska * 2
Connecticut u
Colorado
Kansas
Connecticut 2
Kentucky 12
Delaware *
Minnesota
Georgia 2
Oregon
5
Indiana
Rhode Island »
Iowa * 2
Vermont
Kansas
West Virginia
e
Kentucky
2
Louisiana
Maine 6
6
Massachusetts
Michigan 8
Minnesota 2
Montana 62
Nebraska6
Nevada
New Hampshire 9
New Jersey *2
New Mexico
Oregon 2
Pennsylvania *
Rhode Island 6
South Dakota 2,16
2
Tennessee
8
Texas
Vermont 2
Virginia 2
l0
West Virginia
Wisconsin 2

1
Voluntary as to private employments not covered.
Bmplloyee may elect alter injury
to accept compensation or sue for damages.
2
Voluntary as to private employments not covered.
Election presumed.
In Alabama
and Tennessee may be thus extended only to employment falling tinder numerical exemption.
In Minnesota only to farm labour.
In "Wisconsin only to employees on steam railroads.
8
Voluntary as to private employments not covered.
In Ohio may be thus extended
only to employers having less than three employees.
4
Election
presumed.
6
Voluntary as to private employments not covered ; compulsory as to coal-mining,
Election presumed.
6
Voluntary as to private employments not covered. Positive action required to elect.
7
Compulsory as to employees of the State ; elective as to other public employees.
8
Positive action required to elect.
* Positive action required to elect. Employee may elect after injury to accept compensation or sue for damages.
<o Voluntary as to private employments not covered. Positive action required to
elect, and employers alone have right of election.
11
Voluntary as to public corporations having regularly less than five employees.
12
Voluntary as to public employments other than those conducted by municipal corporations having three or more employees.
15
Voluntary as to towns.
14
Voluntary as to public employments not covered.
10
Compulsory as to employees oí State.
ia
1 Compulsory as to threshing grain.

Ibid., p. 2.

— 22 —

On page 12 is presented a map of the United States indicating the States which have adopted the elective and those
which have adopted the compulsory type of law.
Actions for damages are generally forbidden where both parties
have accepted the Act, but in Arizona (a compulsory State) and New
Hampshire (an elective State) the employee may, after his injury,
choose which remedy he will pursue. Where, under an elective law, the
employer has accepted the Act, a rejecting employee may* S-ue, but the
employer retains the common-law defences except in New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. Upon failure of an employer to provide the insurance required by the Act or his default in premiums, the employee
may, in 23 States ', bring action for damages with the common-law
defences removed. Suit may be brought also in 8 States 2, if there is
"intent" or "deliberate intent" on the part of the employer to injure,
or if the injury is due to his gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
No suits are permitted in 17 States 3 4.

The provisions of the laws in each jurisdiction are indicated
in the following taMe 6 :

1
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana. Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Isiland, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
' Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
3
Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
"ILindley ID. (CLARK, op. cit., pp. 6-7. (Slight modifications after
consultation with author. The Federal Government may not be soled.
6
Adapted from Carl HOOKSTADT: Comparison of Workmen's Compensation Laws of the United States and Canada up to i January Í920.
Bulletin No. 275, United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1920. Brought up to date as of
1 January 1925.

— 23 —

TABLE II. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUITS FOR DAMAGES MAY
BE BROUGHT WHEN BOTH PARTIES COME UNDER THE ACT
Not permitted
Alabama
Alaska

—
—
Colorado
—
Georgia
—
Hawaii

Idaho
Illinois

—.
—.

Kansas
Louisiana
Maine

—

Massachusetts

—

Minnesota

—
—
-~.
—
New Jersey-

New Mexico

—
—
—
—
-

Permitted

—

Arizona
California

—
.—
Delaware
—
—
—
Indiana

Connecticut

Iowa

—

Kentucky

—.
—

Maryland

—

Wisconsin

—

United States
1

ployer, illegal employment of minors, or
failure to insure.

—.

If injury—is due to deliberate intention of employer, or in case of failure to insure.

—

—. insuring in State fund, is in default
If employer,
on insurance premiums.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer is in default on insurance premiums.
In lieu of compensation after injury.

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

—.
—

New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon

Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

—
—

Washington
West Virginia

—.
—
If employer fails to insure his risk.
—.
—
—
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If injury—is due to deliberate intention of emIf employer fails to insure his risk

—. insuring in State fund, is in default
If employer,
on insurance premiums.

Utah
Vermont
Virginia

—
After injury.
Defence of contributory negligence alone remains.
If employer fails to insure his risk.

—

Michigan

Pennsylvania
Porto Rico

—
—

Conditions under which they are permitted

—

Wyoming
~~•

In addition to compensation.

——

If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk, or illegally
employs minors.
If employer is in default on insurance premiums.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If injury is due to wilful act of employer, or if
employer is in default on insurance premiums.
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If injury Is due to employer's illegal act or
gross negligence.
If employer tails to Insure his risk.
If employer fails to insure his risk (probably).
If employer fails to insure his risk.
If employer's wilful or gross negligence causes
death, or If employer charges part of insurance premium against employee i.
If employer fails to insure his risk; if injury
is due to employer's wilful misconduct.

—-

If injury—is2 due to employer's deliberate intention .
If injury is due to employer's deliberate intention », or if employer is in default on
insurance premiums.
•

—

If employer fails to contribute to State fund.

~
' Excess damages in addition to compensation.

— 24 —

No figures are available to indicate the degree to which employees are excluded from the benefits of compensation, either
through adverse election on their own part, or on the part of the
employers. It is probable, however, that the number is not significant 1.
§ 2 . — Employments and Persons Covered
No Act except that of the Federal Government covers all
employees who might come within its scope. Twelve Acts apply
only to "hazardous employments" which are enumerated in
whole or in part in the laws, in some of which power is given to
the administrative authority to add other employments. The principal industrial employments are always included among "hazardous employments". Other Acts provide for general coverage
subject to exceptions, the most important being agriculture and
domestic service. Casual labour and employment not for the purpose of the employer's business are also usually excluded. Other
common exceptions are employers of less than a stipulated number
of employees, employments not conducted for gain, and certain
classes of public employments.
The following tables indicate the provisions for exceptions
made in the various jurisdictions :
TABLE III. ACTS MAKING NUMERICAL EXEMPTIONS, BY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
IN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS AS OF 1 JANUARY 4 9 2 5 *
Employers are exempt who have less than—
TWO

employees
(1 law)
Oklahoma

Three
employees
(5 laws)
Kentucky
Ohio
Texas
Utah
Wisconsin

Four
employees
(3 laws)
Colorado
New
Mexico
New Yorks

Five.
Six
employées employees
(6 laws)
(2 laws)
Maine
Alaska
Connecticut Rhode
Island
Delaware
Kansas 3
New
Hampsh.
Tennessee

Ten
employees
(1 law)
Georgia

Eleven
employees
(2 laws)
Vermont
Virginia

Sixteen
employees
(1 law)
Alabama

1
Adapted from Lindley CÍ.ABK : op. cit., p. 5.
* Numerical exemption applies only in case of non-hazardous employments.
* Numerical exemption does not apply to mining.

An endeavour was made to determine to what extent elective
provisions in workmen's compensation laws had limited the application of such laws in practice. The results were so meagre that no
light was thrown on this important question.

— 25 —
TABLE IV.

SCOPE OF COMPENSATION LAWS

Inclusions
Both hazardous and nonhazardous
employments

Exclusions

Hazardous Numeriemploycal
Agriments
exemp- culture
only
tions

Alabama
Alaska

—

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia

—
Arizona

—
—
—.
—.
—

Ala.
Alas.

—
—

—

Colo.
Conn.
Del.
Ga.

Cal.
Colo.

—

Del.
Ga.

Domestic
service

Ala.
Alas.
—

•

Cal.
Colo.

—

Del.
Ga.

Hawaii
Idaho

—
Indiana

—,

Illinois

—
<—

Iowa

—

•

Kentucky

—
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
.

—

•

Nebraska
Nevada

—
New Jersey

—>

New York
North D a k o t a
Ohio

—
—
Pennsylvania
P o r t o Rico

Kansas

Utah
Vermont
Virginia

—
Virginia

W.
Wisconsin

Kans.
Ky.

Ala.a

—
—
Cal.a

Colo. 2
Conn.2
Del.2
Ga.*

Idaho

—
Ind.

Idaho4
111.«
Ind. 2

Iowa

Iowa«

Kans.
Ky.

Ky.

•

Kans.

Kans.'

—
—
—.
Md.

—
—
—
Md.

Me.
Md.

—
—.
—
Montana
—.
N . H—
amp-

—
—
—
—
—
—
N.H.

Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Mont.
Nebr.
Nev.

Mass. 6
Mich. 62
Minn. 6
Mont.
Nebr.2
Nev. s

—

shire
N.Mexico

—.
—'
—
.
[Oklahoma
Oregon

—

—
—.
—
—.
—
—

Wash'ton
•

—

Wyoming

N.Mex.
N.Y.

—
Ohio
Okla.

~—
—

,—

N.Y.
N.Dak.

.—

Okla.
Ore.
Pa.
P. R.

—

•

N.Y.
N.Dak.

—
—
Pa.—

—

—
—.
—
—
—
—
—
.

N.J. 4
N.Mex.* N.Mex.
—. N . Y .
N.Dak.2
—
Ohio 2

—
—

•

Pa.2

P.R.

R.I.

R.I.2

—
Tenn.
Tex.

S.Dak.
Tenn.
Tex.

S.Dak. 6
Tenn.«
Tex.6

Utah
Vt.

Utah 3
Vt.»

Va.

Va.a

—
—
Wise.

—
W.Va.

—
W.Va.
—

—
—.
Wise. 6

Wise.

—_
—.

—

Me.

•

—.

—
—.
—
—,
__
Del.
—

Kans.6
La.«
Me.s
Md.*

—

Hawaii

Idaho

Wyo.2

Other
employments

Ala.»

—
—.
—
Colo.
—.
—.
Ga.

Haw.5
Idaho
111.
Ind.

—

NonPublic
gain- employemments
ployed

Casual
labour

—.
Louisiana
—,
Maryland

Rhode Island
South D a k o t a
Tennessee
Texas

—_
—.
—.

Okla.

—
—
—
—
Vt.
—
—.
—
•

—

Wyo.

Mass. 8

—
—
—
—
N.H.

Minn.?

Alas. : common
carrier railroads.

—
—.
—
Conn. : outworkers
Del. : o u t w o r k e r s .
Ga. : c o m m o n carrier railroads.
H a w a i i : employees
receiving
o v e r $36 a week.
Idaho.outworkers.

—. emI n d . : railroad
ployees engaged
in t r a i n service.
I o w a : clerks not
subject t o t h e
h a z a r d of industry.
—.
—
—
logging.

Me.:
M d . : country
craftsmen (e.g.
blacksmiths).

—.
—
—
—
Nebr.: outworkers.
Nev. 1:0 outworkers.
N.H.

N.Mex.

—
—
.—
—
—
—

—
Tenn.
Tex.
—

Vt.'

• — '

—
—
-—

—

N . D a k .—
: common
carrier railroad.

—
—
outworkers.

Okla. 1 0

Pa.:
P . R . : clerks and
employees
receiving
over
$1,500 a y e a r .
R . I . : employees
receiving over
$1,800 a year.

—

—
Tex. .-common
carrier railroads.
Vt. : —
employees
receiving
over
$2,000 a year.

—
—
—
—
clerks

Wyo.:
not
subject t o h a zard of industry.

' Adapted from Cari HOOKSTADT : op. cit., p . 20.
* Casual and not for s purpose
of employer's business.
* Except employees of6 the State.
* Casual only.
Casual
or not for purpose of employer's business.
Not for purpose of employer's business,
8
' Except employees of municipality and country.
Manual workmen employed by the
State. 8 Unless machinery is used. 10 All but those engaged in manual or mechanical labour.

— 26 —

In addition to the exclusions which have been noted, employees engaged in interstate commerce and in certain types of
maritime work which fall under Federal jurisdiction are likewise
excluded from the operation of State workmen's compensation
laws. The Acts of 33 jurisdictions make provision for "voluntary" acceptance of either Workmen's Compensation Acts by
those not coining under their terms through compulsion or
"election" as defined above.
The extent to which the total number of employees in the
United States are covered by Workmen's Compensation Acts is not
accurately known. It was estimated in a valuable study, made
by the late Cari Hookstadt for the United States Bureau of Labour
Statistics, that in those States and Territories having Workmen's
Compensation Acts 70.2 per cent, of the total number of employees would be covered, assuming that the Acts were applied to
all who might come within their scope, either by election or compulsion. The percentages in individual jurisdictions varied from
20.5 in Porto Rico to 99.8 in New Jersey. The complete text of
Mr. Hookstadt's study 1 is presented in Appendix I. Conditions
have changed to a considerable extent since this study was published in 1920. At that time it was necessary to use figures from
the Census of 1910 as a basis, and, as Mr. Hookstadt stated, the
"computations, although based upon a detailed study of the
census figures, are in some cases merely estimates, and no claim
is laid to such accuracy as the figures would suggest". The results should not, therefore, be taken as a source of detailed statistical information, but as an indication of the wide variation in
coverage between American Compensation Acts and of the inadequate coverage of many of them.
§ 3. — Injuries Covered
The principal element in the definition of a compensable
injury, as found in 39 Acts out of 46, is the condition that the
injury must arise out of and in the course of employment. In
the remaining Acts, it suffices ii the injury occurred in the
course of employment. Twelve Acts do not specify that the injury
must be accidental, whereas 34 Acts cover accidental injuries only;
the distinction might have had considerable importance if the
1

Op. cit., pp. 29-38.

— 27 ^
courts had decided that "injury" as opposed to "injury by accident" included occupational diseases, but in fact they have not
generally adopted this interpretation.
The meaning of "injury arising out of and in the course of
employment" is illustrated by the following definition given by
the Massachusetts Supreme Court:
It is not easy nor necessary to the determination of the case at
bar to give a comprehensive definition of these words which shall
accurately include all cases embraced within the Act and with precision
exclude those outside its terms. It is sufficient to say that an injury
is received "in the course of" the employment, when it comes while
the workman is doing the duty which he is employed to perform.
It arises "out of" the employment when there is apparent to the
rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal
connection between the conditions under which the work is required
to be performed and the resulting injury. Under, this test, if the
injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the
work, and to have been contemplated 'by a reasonable person familiar
with the whole situation as a result of. the exposure occasioned by
the nature of the employment, then it arises "out of" the employment.
But it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the em '
ployment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from
a hazard to which the workman would have been equally exposed
apart from the employment. The causative danger must be
peculiar to the work and not coimimon to the neighbourhood ; it must
be incident to the character of the business and not independent of
the relation of master and servant. It need not to have been ioreseen or expected, but after.the event it must appear to have had its
origin in the risk connected with the employment and to have flowed
from that source as a rational consequence 1.
Most Acts exclude injuries which are due to certain defined
causes. Thus, 37 Acts exclude injuries caused by wilful intention
of the employee to injure himself or another ; 32, injuries caused
by intoxication; 18, injuries caused by wilful misconduct; 10, injuries intentionally inflicted by another; 13, injuries caused by
violation of safety regulations or failure to use safety appliances.
None of the 46 Workmen's Compensation Acts originally
provided in terms for the coverage of occupational diseases. Occupational diseases are still in whole or in part excluded from
the coverage of 33 Acts. The remaining 13 cover such diseases,
though usually only in a limited way. In all Acts disease re-

Carl HOOKSTADT: Comparison of Workmen's Compensation Laws
of the United States and Canada up to 1 January 1920. Bulletin
No. 275, United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, p. 55, Washington,
Government Printing Office, 1920.

— 28 —
TABLE V. COMPENSATION ACTS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO INJURIES COVERED
AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAID OR DENIED,
AS OF 1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
Exclusions
Injuries Injuries
arising
in
o u t of course
a n d in
of
course e m p l o y ment
of
Injury 2
only
mpelnoty - (7 laws)
(12 laws) e m
(39 laws)

Kind of injury

Accidental
(34 laws)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona

—
Colorado
—
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Id abo
Illinois
Indiana

—
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

—
—
Minnesota

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
N. H a m p shire
New Jersey
N. Mexico
New York

—
—
Oklahoma
Oregqn
Pennsylvania
P o r t o Rico
Rhode
Island
S. D a k o t a
Tennessee

—

Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington

—
—
—
—

—
—
California
—
Connecticut

—
—
—
—
—
—
Iowa
—
—
—
—
—
Massa-

chusetts
Michigan

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
North
Dakota
Ohio

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Texas
—
—
—
—
West

Ala.
Alas.
Ariz. .
Cal.
Colo.
Conn.
Del.
Ga.
Hawaii
Idaho
111.
Ind.
Iowa
Kan. '
Ky.
La.
Me.
Md.
Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Mont.
Nebr.
Nev.
N.H.
N.J.
N . Mex.
N.Y.

Ala.
Alas.

Cal. i»
Colo.

Cal.

—
Del.
Ga.
Hawaii
Idaho

Conn.
Del.
Ga.
Hawaii
Idaho

Conn.*
Del. s
Ga.

I n d . 6 i»
Iowa
Kan.
K y . i»
La.
Me.
Md.'

Ind.
Iowa
Kan. s
Ky.
La.
Me. »
Md. a

Ind.

—

Pa.

—.

P.R.

R.I.
S. D a k .
Tenn.

—
—

—
.—
—
—.
Tex.

Ut. «

Vt.
Va.

—
—

—
—
U.S.

Ala.

—
•—
—
—

—

Md.

—
—

—.

Nebr.
Nev.

Nebr. s

Minn. io Minn.
Nev.

—,
—.

N.H.
— NN .. HJ . .
N.J.io
—
N . M x . i o N. Mex.
—.
N.Y.
N.Y. ä
,

P a . io
P.R. o
R.I.
S.Dak.io
Tenn. i°
Tex.
U t . io
Vt.
Va.

—

P.R.

—

Ga.

—
—
—
—•
—
P . R . 15

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Minn. 12
—.
—.
—
—
N. Mex.
—
—.
—
—
P a . 13
P.R.

R.I.
—
—
S. Dak. S. Dak.
—.
Tenn.
Tenn.
—
Tex.
— Tex. is
Vt.
Va.

—
—

Va.

—

W.V.io W.V.
Wise. i°
U.S.

—
_—
Del.

Iowa

—
—
Ky.

—
U.S.

W.V.

•

__
—
__
—
—.

W y o . 2i W y o .
U.S.

Ala.

—
—
—
—
Del.
__

—

•

W a s h . « Wash.io

—

Ala.

Mass. *
Mich.

—

N. Dak. N. Dak.
—
Ohio i* Ohio i°
—,
Okla.
— Okla.
Ore.
io
—
—

—
—

Okla.
Ore.

Virginia W . V .
Wisconsin W i s e .
Wyoming W y o .
United
States
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—.
—
—
—
—
—

Wilful
Injuries
intenintenn t o x i - Wilful
tion to Ication
tionally
injure (32 laws) c omisn d u c t inflicted
self or
by
(18 laws) another
another
37 laws)
(10 laws)

Occupational
diseases
Violation of
safety
laws or
failure
Not
to use covered Included
safe33
laws) (13 laws)
guards
(13 laws)

.—

—

^_
—
Ind.

—
—
La.
—.
—
—
—

Kan.8

—
—

Ala.
Alas.
Ariz.

—
Colo.
—.

Del.
Ga.

~.
Idaho
Ind.
Iowa
Kan.
K y . 2*
La.
Me.
Md.

—
—
Mont.
Mich.

Nebr.
Nev.

N . H . is N . H .

—
—
__
.
—
—
_

Okla.

—.
—
—
—
Okla.

N . Mex.

Ore.
Pa.

—

—
—
—

Cal.

Conn.

—
—.
—
111. 22
Hawaii

—.
—
—
—
Mass. i i

—
—
—.
—
—23
N.J.
—
N.Y.23

Minn.2s

N.Dak.n
Ohio 23

—
—
—
P.R.

R.I.
S. Dak. S. Dak.
Tenn.
Tenn.
— TUet .x .
Vt.
Vt.
Va.
Va.

—

—.
—
—
—
—
—
—

Wash.

W.V.io W.V.

—
—

Wyo.

—

•

—

•

Wise.

—
U.S.

Includes such expressions as : personal injury by accident or 2accidentally sustained ;
accidental injuries ; and injuries caused by a fortuitous event.
The word "accident"
s
does not appear in description
oí compensable injuries.
For reasons not connected
4
6
with the employment.6
Wilful and serious misconduct.
Deliberate or reckless indifference to safety.
Also while
wilfully 9 intending to commit a crime.
' Except
when
8
10
going to and from work.
Solely.
Without employer's knowledge.
Intention12
ally self-inflicted only.
" Included by ldecision
of court, bureau
or commission.
By
s
14
fellow-employee for personal reasons.
Violation of
law.
Court held that injuries
16
must be caused
by
or
incidental
to
employment.
Gross
negligence
of
employee
sole
16
cause.
Also injuries caused by act of God. 8 , 7 Accidents arising either out of or
in Ihe course of employment are compensable.
' Sustained on premises of plant or in
course of employment away from plant. "Disobedience of rules. 20 Sustained as a result
of employment. 212SCulpable négligence of employee. 22 In certain
occupations included
24
by separate Act.
Designated occupational diseases included.
"Injuries or death due
to the inhalation in mines of noxious gases or smoke . . . or any kind of gas" are covered.

— 33 —
exceeding two weeks. Under 24 of the Acts having waiting
periods, compensation is payable from date of injury if the disability lasts for a specified period.
The following table* indicates the waiting period provided in
each Act and the duration of disability required to entitle a workman to compensation from date of injury:
TABLE I. WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED BY EACH L A W AND TERM
(IN WEEKS) REQUIRED FOR FULL PAYMENT 1 • UNDER COMPENSATION
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF 4 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
NO

p Ä i n 8 | Three days
(Haws) | < 4Iaws >

Oregon
Porto
Rico
South 2
Dakota

Maryland
Utah
Washington
United
States

Five days
(1 law)

One week
(28 laws)

Oklahoma Alaska-8
California
Connecticut-4
Georgia
Hawaii 3
Idaho *
IIlinois-4
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana-6
Maine
Massachusetts-4
Michigan-6
Minnesota-4
Nebraska-6
Nevada-2
New Hampshire-2
New York-7
North
Dakota-1
Ohio
Rhode
Island-4
Tennessee-6
Texas
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin-3
Wyoming-3

Ten days
(5 laws)

Two weeks
(5 laws)

Colorado
New
Jersey-7
New
Mexico
Pennsylvania
Virginia-6

Alabama-4
Arizona-2
Delaware-4
Iowa 5
Montana-6

Figures following name of jurisdiction indicate term required far fuU payment.
* By administrative construction of conflicting provisions.
* From first day of disability in case of ¡partial disability, but no adjudication until
after two weeks.
4
One-third taken up in each of fifth, sixth, and seventh weeks of disability.
* From date of injury in case of permanent partial disability ; in other cases, ODCthird is taken up in each of fifth, sixth, and seventh weeks of disability.
1
Adapted from Lindley D. CLARK: Comparison &f Workmen's

Compensation Laws of the United States as of 4 January 4925. Bulletin No. 379, United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, p. 7, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1925.
o

34 —

§ 3 . — Scale of Compensation
DISABILITY

AM Compensation Acts, except those of Washington and
Wyoming, provide for the payment of percentages of wages in
case of temporary total «disability. In these two States, flat
amounts are payable. I n permanent total disability cases the
same percentage of wages is payable as in temporary total cases,
except in Alaska and Oregon, where varying flat amounts are
payable. I n one State (Nevada) $10 additional 'monthly compensation is allowed if there a r e total dependants residing in the
United States; $30 additional if the injured workman needs a
constant attendant. Provision is made for the payment of 50 per
cent, of wages in approximately one-third of the Compensation
Acts now in force, and 66 2 / 3 per cent. — the largest percentage
provided — in approximately one-quarter. One provides for the
payment of only 40 per cent, to an unmarried workman, three
provide for the payment of 55 per cent., eight for 60 per cent., and
four for 65 per cent. I n all cases these percentages are subject
to 'maxima and minima, which render them ineffective except over
a narrow range.
The various Acts are classified in table I I according to the
percentage of wages payable i n case of temporary total disability.
Partial disability is in most cases compensated by payhig a
percentage of the wage loss. This percentage is usually the same
as that for total disability, but in three Acts * it is reduced to 50
per cent. Four Acts 2 make n o specific provision for temporary
partial disability. Two Acts 3 appear to provide a payment of
50 per cent, of wages in such cases. As the following quotation 4
shows, it is not the rate of compensation but its duration which
varies with the degree of incapacity.
Permanent partial disabilities are dealt with in two ways—one
by paying a percentage of the wage loss, the other by payments for
fixed periods for specified injuries. The latter is more common, all
but three States (Arizona, New Hampshire, and Porto Rico) and the
Federal Government having schedules of greater or less fullness.
In all but three of these the payments are weekly amounts based
on wages ; while in these three (Alaska, Washington, and Wyoming)
the payments are fixed sums. In Porto Rico the amounts payable
1
2
3
4

Hawaii, Maryland, and South Dakota.
Iowa, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Alaska and Porto Rico.
Lindley D. CLARK : op. cit., pp. 11-1(2.

— 35 —
TABLE II. PERCENTAGE OF WAGES PAID AS COMPENSATION
IN TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY CASES UNDER COMPENSATION
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF 1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
40
per cent.
(1 law)
Oregon

50
per cent.
(16 laws)

55
per cent.
(3 laws)

Alabama2 Idaho 3
Alaska
Indiana
Arizona
South
Colorado
Dakota
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois i
Montana
New
Hampsh.
New
Mexico
Porto
Rico
Rhode
Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia

60
per cent.
(8 laws)

65
per cent.
(4 laws)

66%
per cent.
(12 laws)

Flat
amounts
(2 laws)

Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah

California
Kentucky
Louisiana
Wisconsin

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska
New
Jersey
New York
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
West
Virginia
United
States

Washington6
Wyoming5

1
Percentages 2 increased
if ¡married and according
to number of children. Maximum
3
4
662/a per cent.
As1, maximum 60 per cent.
As i , maximum $16 weekly.
As 1,
6
maximum 65 per cent.
Amounts vary with number of children and conjugad condition.

are to be fixed by the commission on the basis of age and wages
received. In Wisconsin weekly periods are fixed only for "lesser
permanent partial" injuries, major injuries being compensated on
the basis of percentages of permanent total disability.
Schedule provisions may provide for payments in addition to the
period of total disability (healing period), or they may cover the
entire allowance for the injury other than medical aid.
Such
payments are exclusive in 19 States 1 , and are in addition to the
healing period in a like number 2 . In Massachusetts compensation
is paid for the term of total disability, and also for partial disability
after the schedule period ; the same is true in Rhode Island, subject
to a maximum term of 300 weeks. In Maine the schedule payment
is in lieu of temporary total disability payments, but subsequent partial disability is compensated to extend not more than 300 weeks from
the date of the injury. In New York the schedule payments are nor1
Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
2
Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.

— 36 —
mally in lieu of all other payments, but if the period of temporary
total disability is protracted beyond designated periods, the schedule
period is extended correspondingly. In Georgia a uniform period
of 10 weeks is allowed as healing time.
The following table shows the number of weeks' payments
provided by the laws of the several States for the injuries specified :
TABLE III. NUMBER OF WEEKS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS
PAYABLE FOR SPECIFIED INJURIES IN THE SEVERAL STATES
Loss o f —
State

In-

Arm
(at
Hand Thumb
shoulder)

Ala. i
Cal. i
Colo, s
Conn.s
Del. i
Ga. s
Hawaii 3
•Idaho 3
111.3
Ind. i
Iowa i
Kans. i

200
2462

208
208
194
200
312
200
200
250
225
210
Ky. i
200
La. i
175
Me. *
150
Md.3
200
Mass.6
50
Mich, i
200
Minn. 3
200
Mont, i
200
Nebr. 3
225
Nev. 3
260
N. J. 3
200
N. Mex. s 150
N. Y. i
312
N. Dak.i 312
Ohio 3
200
Okla. i
250
Oreg. 3
416
Pa. i
215
R. I. 5
50
S. Dafc.3
200
Tenn. i
200
Tex. i
200
Utah»
200
Vt. a
170
Va. i
200
W . Va.i
240
Wis.i

—7"

150
1862
104
156
158
150
244
150
150
200
150
150
150
150
125
150
50
150
175
150
175
217.
150
110
244
260
150
200
329
175
50
150
150
150
150
140
150
200

60
422
35
38
60
60
60
30
60
60
40
60
60
50
50
50
12
60
60
30
60
65
60
30
75
60
60'
60
104
60
12
50
60
60
30
40
60
80

—

dex
lin-

ger
35
342
18
38
35
35
46
20
35
40
30
37
45
30
30
30
12
35
35
20
35
39
35
20
46
42
35
35
69
35
12
35
35
45
20
25
35
40
35

MidRing
dle
finAnger

ger

30
252
13
30
30
30
30
15
30
35
25
30
30
20
25
25
12
30
30
15
30
30
30
15
30
36
30
30
39
30
12
30
30
30
15
20
30
28
25

20
252
7
25
20
20
25
12
20
30
20
20
20
20
18
20
12
20
20
12
20
22
20
10
25
24
20
20
35
20
12
20
20
21
12
15
20
20
15

Little
fin-

ger
15
162
•9

20
15
15
15
9
15
20
15
15
15
20
15
15
12
15
15
9
15
17
15
12
15
18
15
15
26
15
12
15
15
15
9
10
15
20
16

Leg
(at
hip)

Foot

175

125

2062

1662

208
182
194
175
288
180
175
200
200
200
200

104
130
135
125
205
125
125
150
125
125
125
200 ' 125
125
150
175
150
50
50
125
175
150
200
125
180
150
215
173
217
175
125
140
100
205
288
208
286
175
125
175
150
277
381
150
215
50
50
160
125
125
175
125
200
'180
125
170
120
125
175
140
240

—

Great Other
toe
toe

30
342
18
38
30
30
38
15
30
60
25
30
30
20
25
25
12
30
30
15
30
30
30
15
38
38
30
30
43

100

—4

1252

13
10
10
16
6
10
20
15
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
6
10
11
10
8
16
16
10
10
17

—12

—.
12

30
30
30
15
20

10
10
10
6
10
8
16
8

-'30

40
25

Sight Hear- Hearof
ing,
ing,
one
both
one
eye
ear ears

104
104
113
100
128
100
100
150
100
110
100
100
100
100
50
100
100
100
125
108
100
100
160
130
100
100
173
125
60
100
100
100
100
100
100
132

150

—35
52

—,
.60
—
35

—
—60
25

—
—.
—50
—
—.
52
—50
87
40
35

—
—
—
—
156
—.
—
—
—
.—.
—43

—

139
156

—

150
312
115

—

100
150
100

—
—.
—
100
—.

—

156
120
100
260
160
135
150

—
—

—-

416

—
—>
—
150
150

—
—
.—. —
——
—
50

1
Payments under this schedule are exclusive of or in lieu of all other payments.
* Compensation varies with occupation and age. Figures given are for labourer,
45 years
of age.
8
Payments under this schedule are in addition to payments for temporary total
disability
during the healing period.
4
Payments cover total disability. Partial disability based upon wage loss may be
compensated at end of periods given for not over 300 weeks in all.
Payments under this schedule are in addition to payments for temporary total and
permanent
partial disability.
0
In lieu of other (payments unless .period of temporary total disability exceeds fixed
periods for each class of injury.

170

— 37 —

An examination of the above table indicates the extreme
diversity of provision for permanent partial disability. This diversity is further complicated by the varying degrees to which these
benefits are supplementary to others. The only merit which may
be attributed to this method of treatment of permanent partial
disabilities is that of simplicity of administration in the individual
State. Dissatisfaction with permanent partial disability schedules
led to a careful study of this problem by a committee of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. The final report of the committee, which is an extremely
valuable contribution to compensation literature, embodies a permanent partial disability schedule based on the following -principles:
1. The schedule of permanent partial disability compensation
shall be for compensation to be paid after compensation h a s been
paid for temporary disability, either total or partial.
2. Compensation for permanent total disability shall be valued
on t h e basis of total disability for life.
3. Compensation for permanent partial disability shall be valued
as percentage of p e r m a n e n t total disability.
4. The permanent disability schedule shall be one designed to
measure loss of earning capacity.
5. The p e r m a n e n t disability schedule shall be based upon t h e
principle of variable rather t h a n fixed factors. The variable factors
to ¡be itaken into account ettiaM be i(l) n a t u r e of injury, and (2) age of
injured employee.
6. When t h e p e r m a n e n t disability is of a character which peculiarly a n d exceptionally unfits t h e employee for t h e performance of
the occupation in which he was injured or of any other occupation in
which he w a s experienced, the benefits shall be increased t o compensate for t h e excessive handicap t o s u c h a degree a s m a y be
determined toy the commission, tout not mora t h a n 25 p e r cent, of
the schedule allowances 1 .

In California a schedule of percentages of total disability has
been constructed which takes into account "age, occupation, nature
and extent of injury, and ability to compete in an open labour
market". The Act of that State provides for the 'payment of 65 per
cent, of wages for periods varying from four weeks for 1 per cent.
disability, to 276 weeks for disability of 69 per cent. For disability
of 70 per cent, or more, 65 per cent, of wages is paid for 240 weeks,

UNITED STATES

BUREAU

OF LABOUR

STATISTICS : Proceedings

the Tenth Annual [Meeting of the International Association of Industrial
Aacident Boards and C'Ommisisions, head at St. Ptavil, Minnesota, 24-26
September 4923. Bulletin No. 359, ip. 16. Washington, Government
Printing Office, 1924.

— 38 —
and further .provision is made for life pensions (after 240 weeks)
ranging in amount from 10 per cent, to 40 per cent, of wages.
The administrative commission of Wisconsin has constructed
a schedule covering major permanent partial disabilities. Under
this schedule, stated percentages of full weekly indemnity are
payable at each age for each type of disability. These payments
are made for a stated number cf weeks, varying also with attained
ages. The percentage payable at age 70 is in all cases 21U times
the percentage payable at age 15. The percentage payable at age
30 for each type of disability is reduced by two-thirds of one per
cent, for each year of age until the minimuim is reached at 15. It
is increased by seven-eighths of one per cent, for each year over
30 to the maximum at age 70. Indemnities are payable for 900
weeks if the injured workman is 30 years of age or younger.
Beginning with age 31 the period is reduced by 16 weeks for each
year of age until it reaches a minimum of 260 weeks, at age 70.
Several Acts contain no provision dealing with the effect of
previous disability on compensation for further disability. In
most Acts it is provided that the employer's liability for compensation shall be based solely upon the effect of the later injury. In
Oregon, however, compensation is based on the total effect of all
injuries, with the proviso that the effect of previous injuries shall
not be reflected in the rating of the employer for the purpose of
determining his payments to the insurance fund. In Washington,
if the later injury result in permanent disability, the full pension
for that disability is paid. In five States 1 a special fund is provided through payments made to the State in death cases in which
there are no dependants. From this fund payments are made in
cases involving previous disability. In Massachusetts half of the
payments are made from the fund and half by the employer's
insurance carrier. In the other four States payment is made from
the fund to the extent that disability is caused by the previous
injury. In New Jersey a similar fund has been created by taxes
levied on insurance carriers. In Ohio payments are made out of
the surplus of the State fund, whether the employer is insured in
that fund or carries his own insurance.
DEATH

The beneficiaries of compensation in case of death are usually
limited to close relatives or members of the family of the deceased
workman — widows and children under specified ages usually
1

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin.

— 39 —
being presumed to be dependants and therefore entitled to compensation. Where compensation is paid periodically, payments
usually cease on the remarriage of a widow, subject, in 11 States \
to the payment of a dowry of a specified amount. An age limit
of 16 or 18 years is usually placed on the payment of compensation
to children, though this limit is commonly inoperative if the child
is incapacitated. Partial dependants are in general entitled to
benefit in proportion to the extent of their dependence, though
some Acts make no distinction between partial and total dependence. Many Acts provide that partial dependants shall receive no
compensation if there are total dependants in case of death.
Under 19 Acts a fixed percentage of wages is payable to dependants in case of death. Seventeen of these provide for the
same percentage as for total 'disability, two for slightly less 2.
Fifteen Acts provide for a percentage varying with the number
of dependants and with their relationship to the deceased. Seven
Acts provide for lump sums, and four for flat 'amounts payable
periodically, the payments in each group varying with the number
and relationship of the dependants. One Act, that of Oklahoma,
makes no provision for death benefits, as such a provision would
be in conflict with the State constitution.
The following table indicates the practices in the various
jurisdictions:

Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
' Georgia, -42.5 per cent.; South Dakota, 50 per cent.

— 40 —
TABLE IV.

PROVISION

FOR

DEATH

BENEFITS

UNDER

WORKMEN'S

COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF 1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5

Fixed percentages
(19 laws)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
. Wisconsin

65
50
50
42.5
55
60
65
66 %
66%
60
66 %
66%
50
50
50
60
60
50
65

Varying percentages
(15 laws)
Alabama
25-60
Delaware15-60
Hawaii
25-60
Idaho
10-55
Louisiana 32.5-65
Minnesota
30-66%
Montana
30-50
Nevada
10-66%
New Jersey 35-60
New Mexico 15-60
New York
15-66%
N o r t h D a k o t a l 5-66%
Pennsylvanial 5-60
Vermont
15-45
United Statesl 0 - 6 6 %

L u m p sums
(7 laws)
Alaska
Arizona

$l,560-$7,800
1,200 x daily
wages
Illinois
$1,650-84,250
Kansas
3 x annual
wages
New H a m p s h i r e
150 x weekly wages
P o r t o RicoS2,000-$4,000
Wyoming
$120-$6,600

Flat a m o u n t s
(4 laws)
Massachusetts! $10-$ 16
weekly
Oregon
$15—854 monthly
Washington
$20 or more
monthly
West Virginia 2 $10 or more
monthly

1
To' widow and/or children. $3-$16 weekly, .payable to children alter remarriage
of widow. Ofther total dependants compensated on basis of 66 2/s per cent, of wages.
2
50 per cent, to 66 */a per cent, of wages paid in certain cases.

Provision is usually made for the payment of burial expenses
to a maximum ranging from $75 to $200, whether or not there are
dependants. Under some Acts, such 'payment is made only when
there are no 'dependants. All Acts providing death benefits, except
that of Porto Rico, 'call for payment of burial expenses where
there are no dependants. Several also make specific provision
for the expenses of the last sickness.
Several Acts make provision for special payments in cases
where there are no dependants. In Idaho $1,000 is payable to the
State treasury to be credited to the Industrial Administration
Fund from which are to be paid the expenses of administration
of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Kentucky $100 is
payable to the personal representative of the deceased. In Massachusetts $100 is payable to the State treasury for the purpose
of a fund from which specified permanent partial 'disabilities are
compensated when they follow earlier permanent partial disabilities. In Minnesota $200 is payable to the State treasurer for a
fund from which injuries causing permanent total disability are
in 'part compensated if they are brought about by an injury which
would normally cause permanent partial disability only, but
which follows an earlier permanent partial disability. In New
York $1,000 is payable to the State treasurer, $500 for a fund

— 41 —
used for the same purpose as Minnesota, and $500 for a fund for
the maintenance of injured employees undergoing rehabilitation
under the direction of the State Board of Vocational Education.
In Utah an amount equal to 20 per cent, of -the death benefits
which would have 'been payable to total dependants is payable to
the State treasurer. The fund created by such payments is used
to meet any increase in permanent partial disability which may
be brought about by a previous partial disability, and to pay
additional ¡benefits in the discretion of the commission to total
dependants who would otherwise not receive compensation because
dependants having a prior claim had exhausted the normal benefits. In Wisconsin, in oases where there are no total dependants,
there 'must be paid to the State treasury four times the average
annual earnings of the deceased, less any amount paid or to be
paid to partial dependants, the amount paid to the treasury to be
not greater than $1,000. The fund thus created is used for compensating in part permanent total disability arising because of a
permanent partial disability succeeding an earlier permanent
partial disability, and for cases where an earlier permanent partial disability makes the results of a later permanent partial disability more serious. Prom this fund are also paid additional
death benefits to dependent children. This fund is further augmented by the requirement that for every case of loss or total
impairment of a hand, arm, foot, leg or eye, the employer pays
$150 to the State treasury.
Provision is made for the payment of death benefits to nonresident alien dependants in 31 Acts, but in only 15 is such
payment made without restriction. Four provide for the payment
of full benefits, but Testrict the classes of dependants who may
receive them. Eighteen provide for reduced benefits with or
without restriction on the classes of dependants. Residents of
Ganada are frequently excepted from classification as nonresident aliens.
The nature of the provision for such dependants is indicated
in the following table:

TABLE V. PROVISIONS AS TO NON-RESIDENT ALIEN DEPENDANTS
UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
AS OF 1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
No Provision
(5 laws)

Excluded
(4 laws)

Included
(37 laws)

Limitations

Alabama

—
—

Arizona *

Alaska

Three-fourths benefits.

—
California

—.
—

Colorado
Connecticut

One-fourth benefits.
Where sole d e p e n d a n t s as defined in Act
are non-resident aliens b u t there are
resident dependants in fact, compensation m a y b e apportioned.
One-half benefits t o dependent widows
and children only.
Not over $i.,000, except t o residents of
Canada.

Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii

—

— benefits subject t o treaty proOne-half
vision; nothing if law of nation is less
favourable to United States citizen ».

Idaho
Illinois 2
Indiana 2
Iowa

—

— benefits; nothing if law of nation
One-half
excludes United States citizen.
$750 maximum, except t o residents of
Canada.
Half benefits to widow or children under
16 only.

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana *

—

Maine
Maryland

Half rates, except t o residents of Canada.
Dependent widows, children, and parents
only. After one year commission may
commute p a y m e n t s t o three-fourths
value, m a x i m u m $2,400.

Massachusetts 2
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana

—
—
Half—benefits

Nebraska

New Hampshire *

Nevada

—
N e w Mexico

Oklahoma s

—

New Jersey 2

— York
New

— children, and dependent parents
Widow,
only. Commission may commute p a y m e n t s t o one-half present value.

North Dakota 2
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania

P o r t o Rico *

—
South Dakota

—
^_.
Widow, widower, children, and parents
only, unless t r e a t y t o contrary.
Two-thirds benefits to widow and children only.

R h o d e Island 2

—

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
1

t o widow or children under
16 only, unless t r e a t y provides otherwise; none if law of nation excludes
United States citizen.
Widow, children, and parents only. W i t h in one year employer may commute
p a y m e n t s t o two-thirds value.
60 per cent, of benefits.

—
—
—
One-half

benefits, except t o residents of
Canada.

—
Maximum
$1,000, except t o residents of
Canada.
P a r e n t s only, unless t r e a t y provides otherwise; nothing if law of nation excludes
United States citizen.
Widow, invalid widower, and children only.
One-third benefits t o parents, widow and
children only.

—

In former case 50 ¡per cent, paid into Industrial Administration Fund ; in latter,
whole amount is paid.
* Not specifically mentioned in law, but included by court or commission.
Fatal accidents not covered.
4
Probably included — definite information not available.

— 43 —
LIMITS OF COMPENSATION

Maxima
In every Workmen's Compensation Act there are provided
maxima of some sort designed to Testrict the principle oí payment
of compensation still further than has already been done by
making rates of compensation less than the full loss to injured
workmen. These maxima take the form of limits on the amount of
each periodical payment of compensation, on the amount of basic
wages to he used in calculating death benefits, on the length of time
during which benefits may 'be paid, and on the total amount of
benefits which may be paid in a particular case. For example, the
maximum weekly benefits under compensation laws 'providing for
the payment of a percentage of wages in case of disability vary
from $10 in certain cases in Rhode Island, to $66.67 under the
United States law; maximum wages to be used in calculating death
benefits, from $20 in Pennsylvania to $100 under the United States
law ; maximum periods during which benefits may be paid, from
52 weeks for temporary total disability cases in West Virginia, to
550 weeks for certain permanent total 'disability cases in Alabama
and Tennessee; maximum total amounts payable, from $1,560 for
temporary total disability cases in Colorado to $10,000 for permanent total disability cases in Minnesota.
In certain Acts there are no limits on the periods during
which compensation may be paid, nor on the total amount to be
paid, at least for certain types of benefit. The following table
indicates the extent to which such provision has been made:

44 —

TABLE VI. JURISDICTIONS AND CASES IN WHICH COMPENSATION
IS PAYABLE WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME OR TOTAL AMOUNT, UNDER
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF

1 JANUARY 1925
Jurisdiction

Alaska
California
Colorado
Illinois
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
United States

Type oí benefit

Temporary total disability.
Permanent total disability and permanent partial
disability if 70 per cent.
All total disability.
Permanent total disability
Permanent total disability.
Permanent total disability.
Permanent total disability and death benefits to unmarried widow or widower.
Permanent total disability, death benefits to unmarried
widow or widower, and death benefits to other
dependants.
Death benefits to unmarried dependants and all
disability benefits.
Permanent total disability.
All total disability benefits, death benefits to unmarried widow or widower, and death benefits to
other dependants.
Permanent total disability.
All total disability benefits, death benefits to unmarried widow or widower, and death benefits to
other dependants.
Permanent total disability, death benefits to un- .
married widow or widower, and death benefits to
other dependants.
Death benefits to unmarried widow or widower, and
all disability benefits.

The idlowing table presents the maxima at present in force
in all jurisdictions:

45
TABLE VII. MAXIMUM PECUNIARY AND TIME BENEFITS UNDER
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF
i JANUARY -1925
Benefits in case Of
Jurisdiction

Weekly
limits

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho

20.83
12.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
20.00
16.00

Illinois

14.00 1

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N o r t h Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon

13.20
15.00
15.00 »
15.0010
20.00
16.00
18.00
16.0012
14.00
20.00
12.5016
15.00

Pennsylvania
Porto Rico
Rhode Island
South D a k o t a
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
1

12-15

—
—

Weeks

Amount

300

5,000
7,800
4,000
5,000
3,750

—
—

s
*
5
6

15.00
17.00
12.0024
20.0025
20.002'
18.75
18.00
Flat
amounts
12.0026
12.00
10,0031
15.0022
12.0034
20.00
16.00
15.003'
12.00
Flat
amounts
16.0039
18.20
Flat
amounts
66.674-t

Permanent total
disability

T e m p o r a r y total
disability

Weeks

Amount

Weeks

Amount

400-550

5,000
7,800
4,000

30O

5,000

300

—
—
240

4,000
5,000

—

—
—
240

—

520
285
300
312
150

J } n n + >*

240
312
312
285
300
312
400

—
—
—

—
—
—
5,000
—

520
475
350
312
400

—

4,250

—

300
300

5,000

500
400
416
416
400
500

—

335
300
300
416

40013

—
3,800
4,000

.—.
4,000
5,000

—
500

500

300
15

7,500

400
350

.—.
—
—
3,000
__
_—

300
300

—
17
19

300

40023
520

6,500
Not (:overed

416

300

—
300
—
400
360
312

26038

—
—
3,000
—
—
5,000

500

4,000

300

3,500
4,500

—
—
—

.—.
4 X annual
wage4i

—
45

—
500

—

3,600

—
500
.—
.
55035
400
.

260
500

—
—
90042
—

—.
—
4,000
5,000
5,000

—•
—
5,000

.—
—.
6,000
.—.
6,000
5,000
4,000
7,000
10,000

520
475
350
312
400
416
500
300
416
416
300
500
312

—.
—
—.
—.
—
.—.
—
—.

312
300

5,000
4,00029
5,000

500
104
500
312
300
400
312
260
500

—
-—.

4,000
4,500

—
—.
— •

8,000

Weeks

Amount

500
500
300
300
300
lOOmths
300
300
520

5,000

Partial
disability

—
5240
—
-—

4,000
5,000
5,000
f Full
•! d e a t h
1 benefit
5,000

r Full
( death
1 benefit
300 «
5,000

—
—
•—.
6,000

—
416
355
300
300

3,750
4,000
7,000

—
—
500

—
—
—
7,200
—
-—.
—
3,500

300

4,000

—
—
—
—
—.
—
—
—
3,50026

300

60mths M
300
300

.—
.—
—
300

—

3,750

—
—
—
2,50030
—
—
—
—
5,000
—
4,500

104

5,000

300
104
300
312
300
300
312
260
300

—
5,000
—
—
—
5,000
—
4,500

8,000

—
—
—
—
3,500»
4,000

501»

3,750

—

—
—
—
5,000

416

6,000 )

—
i x »unnal
wage

5,000
6,240 1
4,000
5,000
1,560 a

-—
-4—
3 .

2,400

.—
4 Xannual
wage43

•

Permanent partial.
Maximum for permanent partial disability in cases not covered by schedule, $3,120.
"Weekly wages for calculating death benefits to be not more than $30.
Death cases, maximum $12.75 ; partial! disability other than dismemberment or loss
of use,6 maximum $12.
Death cases, maximum wages upon which death benefits based, $36 ; partial disability6 other than dismemberment or doss of use, maximum $12.
Death cases, $12 ; partial disability cases ftther than dismemberment or loss of
use, maximum the difference between wages injured is capable of earning and $12.
7
Increased by $1 for each child under 16. Maximum in any case, $17.
8
Increased to 500 weeks in ipermanent ¡partial cases not covered by schedule.
9
Partial disability cases, $12.
10
Death cases and permanent partial disability cases, $12.
[Notes continued on p . 46.]
2

3
4

—

— 46 —

Minima
Most Compensation Acts likewise provide minima for periodical compensation payments. If the wages fall below these minima
the actual wages are usually paid as compensation. Some
Acts which provide minimum amounts for disability have no
minima for death cases. The amounts range from $3 (one Act),
to $8 per week'. Practically all Acts provide for a minimum of at
least $6.
Effect of Maxima
The provision of (maximum periodical payments in Workmen's Compensation Acts has resulted in a marked difference
between the actual and nominal rates of compensation. The
experience of Pennsylvania during the years 1916 to 1922, inclusive, illustrates this effect. During the first four of these years,
11
Permanent partial cases involving dismemberment or Joss of use, $3,750; other
permanent partial cases, $3,000.
12
Permanent ipattial disability eases involving dismemberment or loss of use, $.10.
Death cases, flat amounts to widow and children. To other total dependants, maximum $10.
18
To dependants other than widow and children, 500 weeks.
14
Maximum amount for dependants other than widow or children, $4,000.
16
Maximum for dependants other than widow and minors, 300 weeks.
16
Partial disability cases, $6.25.
17
After first 400 weeks, $5 iper week payable during disability.18
Permanent partial disability cases other than .dismemberment or loss of use,150 weeks.
10
After 300 weeks compensation reduced to 45 per cent, of wages. Maximum $12.
20
Monthly maxima : death cases, compensation calculated on maximum wages of
$120 ; permanent total disability cases, $60 (increased /to $90 if injured needs constant
attendant) ; temporary total disability cases, $72 (increased to $82 if total dependants
resident in United States) ; temporary partial disability cases, $40 ; permanent partial
disability
cases, $60.
2
' Dependants other than widow, children, or parents of a minor, 100 months.
50 per cent, of wages payable for one month for each per cent, of disability.
88
Period extended if employee is undergoing vocational rehabilitation.
24
Death cases : compensation to be calculated on ithe basis of maximum wages of $30.
25
Death cases : compensation to be calculated on basis of wages of not more than $150
a month. In permanent disability cases employees undergoing vocational rehabilitation
receive additional compensation not exceeding $10 per week for maintenance.
26
Maximum applies to temporary disability only.
27
Death cases : compensation to be calculated on basis of maximum weekly wages
of $30.
28
Death c a s e s : compensation to be calculated on basis of maximum weekly wages
of $30.
2
° In case of sickness^ $3,000.
30
If permanent.
31
Total disability, $16.
82
Does not apply to death.
38
Four times average annual earnings, maximum $3,000.
54
In permanent total disability cases inoreased $1 for each dependant, maximum $15.
Death8 5 cases : 1 dependant $12 ; 2, $13 ; 3, $14 ; 4 or more $15.
-Compensation reduced to $5 per week after 400 weeks.
36
Compensation after first 5 years reduced to 45 per cent, of wages.
87
Death cases, no maximum weekly payments ; partial disability cases, other than
dismemberment or loss of use, $10.
88
Dependants other than widow, widower, or children, 208 weeks.
88
Death, flat amounts for widow, widower or children ; parents of unmarried minor,
$7 ; other dependants, maximum $20 per month.
40
78 weeks in specified serious cases.
41
Average annual earnings on which compensation based to be not more than $1,400 ;
in death cases increased by 4.762 per cent, to 71.429 per cent, of one annual average wage
for each dependant child under 16, payments to (dependants other than children not to
exceed
in any case amount of permanent total disability benefit.
42
Decreased by 16 weeks for each year of age over 30, to 260 weeks for age 70 and over.
48
Compensation for all permanent partial disabilities determined by schedule.
44
Death cases : compensation to be calculated on basis of maximum wages of $100.
45
Maximum period for other than widow, widower or child, 416 weeks.

— 47 —

when the nominal rate of -compensation was 50 per cent, a weekly
maximum of $10 reduced the effective compensation to an average
of 47.8 per cent, in 1916, 44.8 per cent, in 1917, 40.9 per cent, in
1918, and 38.6 per cent, in 1919. The raising of the nominal rate
to 60 per cent, in 1920, with a maximum of $12 per week, raised
the effective rate to only 40.6 per cent.—much less than it had
been in 1916. This was a period of rising wages and of rising
cost of living. In 1921 and 1922, when wages were falling, the
effective rate increased to 44.6 per cent, and 45 per cent. The experience of Pennsylvania illustrates not only the effect of maxima
in reducing the effective rate of compensation below the nominal,
but it also illustrates the contribution of such provisions to making
a Compensation Act inflexible at times of changing wages and
general prices 1.
Further details of this experience are shown in the following
table 2 :
T A B L E VIII.

COMPARISON OF COMPENSATION W I T H
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA *

Item
Effective rate of compensation (per cent.) 2
Average weekly wage
Average weekly compensation
Number of accidents reported

WAGES,

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

0.478
815.52

0.44S
$18.60

0.409
$22.16

0.386
$24.38

0.406
$28.48

0.446
$24.91

0.450
$24.77

$7.42

$8.33

$9.06

$9.41

$11.55

$11.10

$11.15

10,933

12,801

10,345

11,321

17,915

25,459

32,890

1
The above table is a summary of special reports made by insurance carriers to the
Pennsylvania
Insurance Department.
5
Ratio of compensation to wages : 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, a nominal 50 per cent. Act
with $10 weekly maximum ; 1920, 1921, 1922, a nominal 60 per cent. Act with ?12 weekly
maximum.

1
For a further study of the effect of weekly m a x i m a in reducing
compensation benefits, see Carl HOOKSTADT: Comparison of
Workmen's
Compensation Insurance and Administration.
Bulletin No. 301, United
States Bureau of Labour Statistics, pp. 66-71. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1922.
2
Gregory C. KELLY : "An Adequate Weekly M a x i m u m " in the Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the International
Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions,
held at
Baltimore,
Maryland, 9-43 October 4922. Bulletin No. 333, United States B u r e a u of
Labour Statistics, p. 288. Washington, Government P r i n t i n g Office,
1923.
Figures for 1921 and 1922 are supplied through the courtesy of
Mr. Kelly.

— 48 —

That the effect of the weekly maxima in reducing the compensation rate was of real importance is shown by the fact that
in only 16 per cent, of the accidents compensated in 1920 was the
rate of compensation 60 per cent. In 13 per cent, of the cases the
effective rate was actually under 30 per cent. The distribution of
effective rates of compensation is shown in the following table 1 :

TABLE IX.

DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTIVE RATE
PENNSYLVANIA,

COMPENSATION,

1920
Accidents compensated
a t each r a t e

P e r cent, compensation forms of wages

All (40.6 per cent.)
60 per cent.
50 and u n d e r 60 per cent.
40 a n d u n d e r 50 per cent.
30 and u n d e r 40 per cent.
U n d e r 30 p e r cent.

Number

Per cent.

17,915
2,845
2,715
5,067
4,921
2,367

100
16
15
28
27
13

Maximum periods during which payments of compensation
may be made ;
«jîîeci?»
in reducing the compensation payable. Unfortunately, no figures
are presently available to indicate their importance.

§ 4. — Commutation of Payments
Commutation of compensation payments is usually permitted,
subject to the permission of the administrative authority; in
several 'cases, after a minimum period has elapsed. The basis of
•commutation is usually stated. The intent in general is to permit
communation only when it is in the best interests of the employee.
The 'conditions under which commutation is permitted are indicated in the following table prepared for this report by the
United States Bureau of Labour Statistics:

C. KELLY: op. cit.,

290.

TABLE X. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS
ARE PERMITTED UNDER COMPENSATION LAWS O.F THE UNITED STATES
AS OF '1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
Conditions under which c o m m u t a t i o n s may be made
Jurisdiction
Application made by

Lapse of time
berore c o m m u t a tion can be granted

—
—
—
—

Alabama

Mutual agreement.

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia

Motion—of court.
Either party or commission's motion.
Motion of commission.
Motion of commissioner.
Either p a r t y .
Mutual agreement.

Hawaii
Idaho

Either p a r t y .
Do.

Illinois

Do.

6 months in total
disability cases.

Indiana

Either party or board's
motion in case of permanent disability oí
minors.
Either p a r t y .

6 m o n t h s ; any
time in case of
minors.

Iowa

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska

Employee, if security is
doubtful.
Either p a r t y .
Mutual agreement.
Either party.
Motion of commission
Mutual agreement; or
board's motion in case
of permanent disability of minors.
Mutual agreement; board
m a y grant commutation.
Order of commission.
Beneficiary.
Mutual agreement.

6 months.
6

—.
—
months.
—
—

•

6 months.
Do.

—.
—

6 months.
6 m o n t h s ; anyt i m e in case of
minors.

Best interest of parties.
.Tust or necessary.
Best interest of p a r t i e s .
Best interests of beneficiary or
hardship on employer or insurance carrier.
Best interests of parties.
Best interest of parties at b o a r d ' s
discretion.
Interest of both parties ; either p a r t y
may reject board's award, except
in d e a t h or dismemberment cases.
In unusual cases.

When period of compensation can
be definitely determined. Granted by court upon approval of
commissioner.
Employer may redeem liability
after 9 m o n t h s ' p a y m e n t .
Best interests of p a r t i e s .
Interest of beneficiary.
Best interest of beneficiary.
In every case except temporary
disability.
In unusual cases.

—
—

Any case of periodical p a y m e n t s .

Motion of commission.
Employer.
Either party.
Motion of -court.

New York

—

North Dakota

Commission deems advisable.
Commission's motion.

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon

Motion of commission.
Do.
Do.

—
—

Pennsylvania
P o r t o Kico
Rhode Island

Either p a r t y .
Either party.

—
6 months.

South D a k o t a

Do.

6 m o n t h s in t o t a l
disability cases.

Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Mutual agreement.
Do.
Motion of commission.

Vermont
Virginia

Washington
West Virginia

Either p a r t y .
Mutual agreement; or
commission's motion
in case of permanently
disabled minors.
Beneficiary.
Motion of commissioner.

Wisconsin

Motion of commission.

—•

—
Best interest
of w o r k m a n .
Best interest of parties.

Board may grant c o m m u t a t i o n s a t
any time if special circs, require.

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico

Wyoming

Court approval necessary in d e a t h
and severe injury cases.

6 months.

Nevada

• — •

Other conditions

—
—
---

—

—
-—
—
—
weeks.
—

•

•—
6 months.

—

•

Best interest of beneficiary.
In
d e a t h and p e r m a n e n t disability
cases consent of court necessary.
No commutations t o wholly d e pendent beneficiaries.

—-

In unusual cases.
Court may authorise or a p p r o v e
compromise or s e t t l e m e n t s of
claims for lump s u m .
In interest of justice.
Death and p e r m a n e n t disability cases only; best interest of beneficiary. L u m p sum t o widow limited
t o 416 weeks' compensation.
Under special circumstances.
In interest of justice.
Commission m a y in a n y case comm u t e >/, of value, thereafter reducing p a y m e n t s proportionately.
Best interest of parties.
Best —
interest of beneficiary
hardship upon employer.
Best interest of parties.

Approval of court necessary.
In death or perm, disability cases.
Under special circumstances if
deemed advisable.
Best interest of parties.
In unusual cases and best Interests
of parties.
I n d e a t h or perm, disability cases.
Under special circumstances and if
advisable.
Best interests or parties. Consent of
all parties in p e r m a n e n t t o t a l
disability cases.

—
4

— 50 —
§ 5. — Medical and Surgical Benefits
PERIODS AND COST

Medical and surgical care is provided under all Acts, except
those of Alaska and Arizona, where such care is limited to the last
sickness of injured workmen who die without dependants. Under
10 Acts, neither the time nor the amount of such care is limited,
though in one of these (Washington) provision is made for the
payment of one-half of the cost from a fund contributed by employees. Eighteen Acts authorise the administrative authority to
increase the limit of time, of amount, or of both. There remain
16 Acts with absolute restrictions of time, of amount, or of both.
In actual practice these restrictions are not so serious as would
appear, as many employers and insurance carriers recognise the
economy of furnishing full care, even if they are not required, nor
prompted by humanitarian motives to do so.
The provisions made in the various Acts are indicated in the
following table * :
TABLE XI.

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
1
2

MAXIMUM PERIODS AND COST OF MEDICAL SERVICE
UNDER VARIOUS COMPENSATION LAWS
Maximum
period
60

days

—
—
Unlimited

60 days
Unlimited
30 d a y s i
do.i
Unlimited
do.
8 weeks i
30 days i
4 weeks
50 days
90 daysi
Unlimited
30 daysi
Unlimited
2 weeks i
90 d a y s
do.i
2 weeks
Unlimited

Maximum
cost

100

—
—
Unlimited

200
Unlimited
100 1
100
Unlimited
Unlimited
200 i
Unlimited
100 i
150
100 i
250
100 1
500
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
100
Unlimited

State

Maximum
period

Maximum
cost

Nevada
N. Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania.
Porto Rico
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States

90 days i
14 days
Unlimited
10 days
Unlimited
do.
do.
60 d a y s i
Unlimited
30 days
Unlimited
8 weeks
12 weeks
30 days
4 weekst
Unlimited
2 weeks
60 days
Unlimited 2
do.
90 days l
Unlimited
do.

Unlimited
Unlimited
100 i
150
Unlimited
Unlimited
200 i
100 i
250 i
100 i
Unlimited
200
150
100
Unlimited
500 i
100
Unlimited
Unlimited
600
Unlimited
200
tfsjimited

Additional service in special .cases or at discretion of commission.
Employees must pay one-half of medical cost.

Most of the Acts specifically provide that the employee may
secure medical aid at the expense of the employer if the latter
fails to furnish it, but in only five jurisdictions is the employee
1

iLindley D. CLARK: op. cit., p. 13.

— 57 —
State. In those jurisdictions which have State funds 1 the funds
are administered by the authorities having general charge of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, with the exception of three 2, where
administration of the funds is assigned to others. State funds a r e
of two kinds, exclusive or monopolistic, and competing. An
exclusive State fund is given a (monopoly of all workmen's compensation insurance written within the jurisdiction, while a competing State fund is operated in competition with private insurers.
Eight Workmen's Compensation Acts 3 provide for exclusive State
funds, and nine * for competing State funds. Tennessee has also
provided for a competing State fund for the coal-mining industry,
but it has not been placed in operation, since the employers prerequisite to its creation have not subscribed 5.
§ 2 . — Obligation of the Insurer
I n general, the insurer contracts to assume all of the obligations of the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The private companies and at least one State fund (Utah) likewise
cover any residual employers' liability under the common law.
The Universal Standard Workmen's Compensation Policy,
which is the form of contract under which is written the greater
part of workmen's compensation insurance in the United States,
may be summarised as follows.
The insurance company agrees (1) to pay promptly compenvsation which is due to the policyholder's employees under the
workmen's compensation law; (2) to pay whatever medical or
funeral costs may be required by the law; (3) to indemnify the
policyholder against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages
to injured employees; (4) to advise the policyholder as to prevention of accidents; (5) to defend the policyholder in any actionswhich may be brought against him on account of accident's. The
employees in respect of whom the policyholder is insured are all
those whose remuneration is included in the total pay-roll of the
1
California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Porto Rico, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
2
Idaho, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
3
Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Porto Rico, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming. In West Virginia the employer who
has obtained permission to carry his own risk may insure in a private
carrier.
4
California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana,
New 5York, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
The distribution of State funds by States is shown in the map
on p. 58.

Exclusive State Funds
Competing Slate Funds
Private Carriers only

Provision for insurance under Workmen's Compensation Acts in tihe Un

— 59 —
policyholder, on which the premium is calculated. The obligations to pay compensation and medical or funeral costs are
"declared to be the direct obligations and promises of the company to any injured employee covered hereby, or, in the event of
his death, to his dependants". The obligations of the company are
not to be affected by the 'failure of the policyholder to pay
premiums after the accident or to give notice to the company
as required in the policy, or by the death or bankruptcy of the
policyholder.
The form of contract is usually subject to approval by the
State and its substance is in some measure prescribed by the
Compensation Act. Among other things, it is usual to require that
notice of cancellation must be Bent to the State administrative authority. In general, employers are not relieved of liability to pay
compensation claims by insurance. California, where insurance
as prescribed by the Act relieves the employer of 'liability, is an
exception. Insurance in the competing State funds of New York
and of Pennsylvania, and in the exclusive State funds of North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
also constitutes a relief from all liability under the Compensation
Act. It should be noted that most employers are subject to continuing 'membership in exclusive State funds, so that they will
eventually make up 'amy deficiencies which imay occur.
§ 3. — Competition
Insurers indulge in an enormous amount of competitive
activity and of competitive literature, much of which is quite
irrelevant to the fundamental question of what system of security
will most thoroughly and economically accomplish the purposes of
workmen's compensation. The answer to this question is not yet
apparent. Mutuals and State funds claim lower costs, stock
companies claim superior service; advocates of monopolistic State
funds argue that workmen's compensation is a public function, to
be administered by a public authority in the interests of society,
and that the expenses of competition might better be saved and
devoted to increased benefits to workmen. The answer is made
that exclusive State funds have demonstrated their weaknesses as
agencies for carrying into effect the primary purpose of accident
prevention and prompt payment of claims; that prompt and full
payment of idlakns can best be secured through governmental
regulation; and that private carriers are accomplishing much
more in accident prevention than are State funds. Private car-

60 —
riers are charged with undue expense, State funds with political
mismanagement. It is argued further that competition is advantageous, since it promotes service on the part of all carriers.
Figures and opinions a r e cited to support all these claims.
Examples in support of most of the various contentions can be
found. Perhaps it is well that various experiments are goingforward, it is to be hoped, toward a demonstration of the system
of security bast adapted to the purposes of Workmen's Compensation Acts. One experiment, which was originally proposed in
Massachusetts and all but incorporated in the Act of that State,
was an exclusive privately-managed 'mutual in which insurance
was to be required. It is argued that such an organisation, which
finds its inspiration in the German system, would combine the
efficiency of private management with the economy of the exclusive and m u t u a l 'principles.
During the year 1923 the premiums written by the various
types of insurers were as follows x :
Type of
Premiums
Percent.
carrier
$
of total
Stock companies
105,813,599
62
Mutuals
35,042,555
20
State funds
31,339,680
18
Total
172,195,834
100
Private companies wrote, therefore, approximately 82 per
cent, of the total of workmen's compensation insurance. No
figures are available to show to what extent employers chose to
carry their own risk. I n the States having competing State funds
the percentages of total premiums written by the State funds in
1923, were approximately as follows:
States

Percentage
32

California 2 '
Colorado 3
Idaho 2
Maryland
Michigan 2
Montana
New York
Pennsylvania
Utah2
Total
1

27
51
16
5
58
8
20
33
16

It has been necessary to compile these figures from various
sources and to accept figures, in a few cases, for the year ending 30
June 1923. There is also some variation in the manner of calculating
the figures. For these reasons the results, while approximately
correct, are to be accepted only as a general indication of the situation. 2 No figures are available for reciprocals.
These State funds have a monopoly of the insurance of public
employments.

— 61 —
• The competitive system of insurance makes necessary careful
regulation of insurance carriers by the Government, a function
which is reserved to the States under the Constitution of the
United States. The State governments a r e concerned primarily
with solvency and with premium rates.
§ 4 . — Solvency
Obviously the requirement of insurance is useless unless it
implies security of payments for the worker in whose interest the
workmen's compensation law has been adopted. The insurer
must be compelled to maintain its ability to pay »11 claims as they
hecome due. The fact that workmen's compensation claims, may
be payable over a long period of time necessitates a reserve fund
from which they are to be paid. If failure to pay claims as they
become due were the oMy test, evidence of insolvency of a carrier
might be long delayed a n d the seriousness of the resultant losses
correspondingly aggravated. For these reasons the'States regulate reserves of private carriers, requiring them to maintain funds
which are calculated to enable them to c a r r y to maturity all
payments on account of injuries which have occurred prior to the
date of annual accounting to the State (31 December).
State funds a r e subject to similar requirements, though the
method of calculating reserves is in some oases left to the discretion of the administrative authorities of the fund. State insurance
laws prescribe methods of calculation of reserves, but such
methods do not always produce adequate reserve funds, an end
which must sometimes be attained through additional funds set up
voluntarily or at the instance of the Insurance Cornnrissioner. • In
general, it may be said that insurers of the compensation obligation are held to adequate standards of solvency, both by the requirement of reserves and by other Governmental requirements.
§ 5. — Rates of Premium
Rates of premium are intimately connected with solvency.
Sufficient premiums must be collected to enable the carriers to
meet expenses, to pay immediate claims, and to set up adequate
reserves. For this reason several States require rates to be adequate to thèse purposes. Under a competitive system there is
constant temptation to reduce rates to employers who might secure
permission to carry their own risk, or whose business is of
sufficient volume to be attractive to insurance carriers. If
premiums as a whole are to be maintained at a n adequate level

— 62 —

such practices would involve the payment of excessive premiums
by other employers. Not only would this situation be unjust to
employers, but it would in some «ases defeat one of the aims of
compensation, that of making the industry bear the loss for which
it is primarily responsible. For this reason several States have
enacted laws forbidding unjust discrimination between policyholders or requiring that rates be reasonable. One State (Texas)
determines the rates to be charged by private carriers. The
requirements oí individual States are indicated in the following
taMe 1 :
REGULATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE RATES
BY STATES

States where States with antirates are made discrimination
laws
by State
authorities
Texas
Nevada *
North
Dakota i
Ohio 1 1
Oregon
Washington >
Wyoming *
West
Virginia *

California
Delaware
Georgia
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
New
Hampsliire
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

Rates' must
be adequate
in

Rates must
be reasonable
in

Rates must be '<
adequate and •
reasonable '

California
Colorado
Maryland
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

South
Dakota

Alabama
F
Delaware
Georgia
Kentucky
Maine
Minnesota
,
New
•
Hampshire L'
New Jersey '
New Mexico ;
(for mutuals)
New York
Oldahoma
Tennessee
;
Utah
1
Vermont
¡
Virginia
;'

States having monopolistic funds.

These requirements, and the necessity of controlling the competitive situation, have brought about the organisation of quasiofficial regulatory bodies, and bave given rise to a highly
developed rating technique. Rates of premium per $100 of payroll are calculated for each State and for each •classification of
industry on the basis of insurance experience. A high order of
statistical and actuarial method is employed for this purposeIn fact the tendency is perhaps toward over-refinement of method.
In addition to the calculation of such rates, plans have been
1
Adapted from MICHELBACHER and NIAL : Workmen's Compensation Insurance, <p. 412. iMcGraw-Hil'l Book Co., New York, 1925.

— 63 —

developed, and are generally applied, for measuring the extent to
which individual plants vary in loss-producing cjuality from the
average plants in their respective classifications of industry. This
is accomplished in part through an inspection of the physical
condition of plants so far as it bears on the occurrence and severity of industrial accident ("schedule rating") and in part through
a calculation based on the statistical experience of the establishment ("experience rating"). These two systems of rating, which
are known as "merit rating", are used to determine to what
extent an individual employer is entitled to a discount from the
rate for his classification, or should be subject to a higher rate of
premium.
The 'principal rate-making body is the National Council on
Compensation Insurance, composed of a membership of 76 insurance carriers (1 February 1924) of all types except exclusive
State funds. This organisation collects experience, develops ratemaking methods, and calculates rates for a large number of the
States. Some of the States have local rate-making bodies, most
of which co-operate with the Council.
It is not enough to calculate rates for classifications of industry and to formulate methods of merit rating; it is necessary to
see that rates are actually applied without unjust discrimination
to individual employers. The National Council has for this purpose undertaken the administration of rates in approximately 20
States. In most of the other competitive States a similar function
is performed by quasi-official rating bureaux, or by the National
Bureau of Casualty and Surety Underwriters.
Another aspect of compétitive insurance which has developed
troublesome qualities is the cost of securing business through
agents and brokers. The tendency to offer large rewards in the .
form of high commissions, which would naturally result eventually in larger cost to policyholders, has led the States generally to
limit the total cost of acquiring business to I7V2 per cent, of workmen's compensation insurance premiums.

CHAPTER V
ADMINISTRATION A N D SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
§ 1. — Administrative and Judicial Authorities
Most Workmen's Compensation Acts in the United States are
administered by a specially created authority. In 37 Acts provision is made for a commission, board, bureau, or individual commissioner for this purpose. Usually the authority of the administrative body is exercised over the entire territory to which the
Act applies, but in Connecticut there is a single commissioner for
each of five autonomous districts, and in Hawaii there is an Industrial Accident Board for each county. In Iowa and New York,
where the administrative authority is lodged in a single commissioner, further provision is made for the settlement of disputes, in
the former State through arbitration committees, and in the latter
by the creation of an industrial board. In Rhode Island, while
a single commissioner has general charge of administration, disputes ¡are settled by the courts. Under nine Acts 1 the administration of workmen's compensation is in large part in the hands of
the courts. Administration by experts is generally accepted as
the most desirable method, since administration by the courts perpetuates some of the most objectionable features of the old
employers' liability system. It is probable, however, that among
the administrative organisations created by the various Acts there
is as much variation in competence and in method as has been
shown in provision for benefits.
The situation has been pointedly described in the following
quotation:
By comparison with the miserly scale of benefits, other shortcomings of the American compensation system are of minor consequence. Yet the administration of the laws leaves much to be desired.
Most of the States, indeed, have created commissions ad hoc with
fairly broad powers ; only nine commonwealths still retain the
British system of adjudication by the ordinary courts. The work of the
compensation ¡boards will compare favourably with other branches of
public administration in this country- The number of disputed claims
is small, appeals are ie.w and the statutes, on the whole, are liberally
construed. In contrast with the law courts the commissions are even
models of promptness and efficiency. But the commissioners are
' Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

— 65 —
political appointees, frequently changed, the scale of salaries is low,
the appropriations are inadequate for the work to be done and the
administrative staffs are often political and usually undermanned,
underpaid and ill-trained. Few of the boards are furnished with field
investigators or are otherwise equipped to go out and find the facts.
Initiative in the settlement of claims rests primarily with employers
and insurance carriers ; if a claim is resisted the claimant must present his petition and prove his case.
Disputed claims are heard before the commissioners themselves
or before referees or examiners by a procedure which is intended to
be informal. But commissioners and referees are habitually drawn
from the ranks of practising attorneys and are imbued by long
experience with a predilection for the forms of the common law. The
boards, moreover, are subject to court review, not only on the interprétation of the statutes, but on the sufficiency of the evidence to
support their findings of fact. The possibility of reversal on technical grounds enforces the observance of forms that might otherwise
be disregarded. Lastly, the want of field investigators and of funds
for impartial medical examinations compels reliance upon the testimony produced at hearings. For all these reasons much technicality
has crept into compensation procedure. Hearings take on 'a litigious
character, with prescribed forms of petitions, answers, summonses
and findings ; both parties are commonly represented by counsel and
a substantial proportion of death and permanent disability benefits
is diverted to contingent fee attorneys. Court appeals, too, are
numerous in certain jurisdictions, with the usual results of expense,
delay and uncertainty in the administration of the law.
Formal hearings, however affect at most some five or ten per
cent, of compensation cases. The most important and difficult work
oí the commissions is not the determination of disputes but the supervision of Settlements by agreement. Agreements are, in most States,
subject to the board's approval and no release or final receipt is valid
unless compensation has been paid in accordance with the statute.
Unconscionable settlements are in fact freely set aside when brought
to the attention of the boards and numerous cases in which compensation ha« been suspended are reopened upon proof that disability has
recurred. But the power of review is effective only in so far as facilities exist for its exercise. The supervisory work of the boards is
handicapped by want of funds, by the lack of field investigators and by
that general disposition to rely upon claimants' initiative which is
deeply rooted in American laissez faire traditions.
Unscrupulous
adjusters find it easy to impose upon foreign-speaking workmen and
their widows and many a conscienceless settlement is made and final
agreement secured whch is never called in question. This species of
abuse is especially prevalent in cases of permanent partial disability
not covered by the specific indemnity schedules.
Even more serious than short changing—which, after all, affects
relatively few cases—is the habitual delay in the payment of compensation claims. There are no systematic statistics on the subject,
but such test studies as have been made in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania
and New York indicate that compensation for temporary disability
is habitually not paid until disability has ceased and the injured has
returned to work ; that initial payments on death claims are often
unreasonably delayed and that compensation for permanent disability is suspended out of hand upon the mere allegation of the
employer or insurance carrier that the claimant can do light work.
5

— 66 —
If the claim is resisted payment does not begin until an award is
made and payments, even under an award, are suspended in case
of appeal until final adjudication. It thus occasionally happens that
nothing is paid within two or three years after the date of injury.
Such delay operates pro tanto to defeat the very purpose of a compensation system. Every consideration of public policy requires that
relief shall be given when relief is needed. Not reimbursement but
support during disability or dependency is the object of compensation,
The remedy for unreasonable delay is to be found in simpler procedure, in appropriate penalties for failure to pay compensation when
and as due, in administrative pressure upon employers and insurers
to make prompt payment and in the proviso that payments under
a referee's award shall continue pending the outcome of an appeal 1 .

In most jurisdictions, other than those -having exclusive State
funds, direct settlements may be made either by the employer or
by the insurance company. Usually such 'settlements are subject
to approval by the administrative authority, to which appeals may
likewise be made for settlement of disputes. Awards made by
such authority may be reopened for 'consideration and modification in practically all jurisdictions—usually either on the initiative of the administrative authority or on the application of either
of the parties interested. When cases come before authorities for
settlement presumptions are allowed under certain Acts in favour
of the claimants. Several laws further specifically provide that
the administrators are not bound by legal rules of evidence, nor
by technical rules of procedure. Under practically all laws at
least some attempt is made to dispense with formality in getting
at the facts. Under all laws providing for a specially created
administrative body (except the Federal law) appeals may be taken
to the ¡courts, although many Acts provide that such appeals shall
be on questions of law only. In some cases provision is made for
a direct appeal to the higher courts of the jurisdiction.
§ 2. —Administrative Functions, Personnel, and Expenses
of Commissions and Funds *
Compensation laws are administered by industrial accident
commissions or boards composed usually of three or five members
and a staff of employees. A few of the laws are administered by
1

E. H. DOWNEY : Workmen's Compensation, pp. 154-157. The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1924. Used by permission of publishers.
2
Carl HOOKSTADT : Comparison of Workmen's
Compensation
Insurance and Administration, pp. 21-26. Bulletin No. 301, United
States Bureau of Labour Statistics. Washington, Government Printing
Office, 1922. While this report was made on the basis of an investigation conducted during the years 1919 to 1921, it is believed that
conditions have not radically altered since ¿hat time. Nevertheless, four

— 67 —
a single commissioner, while in Massachusetts the hoard consists
of six members. I n most of the States the functions of the commission are limited to the administration of the Comipensation Act
proper. I n some States the commission also has charge of the
accident prevention work and in a few States the commission
enforces all the labour laws, including those relating to safety,
woman and child labour, factory inspection, conciliation, etc. In
most of the States having State insurance funds the commission
is also charged with the administration of the fund.
FUNCTIONS AND W O R K OF COMMISSIONS

The actual duties and work performed by the commissioners
themselves vary greatly in the several States. These variations
are the result not only of the differences in the laws but of the
relative importance attached by the commissions to the several
functions and of the development of administrative organisation
within the State. I n some of the States, particularly Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the commissioners devote practically all
their time to the hearing of cases. I n practice they exercise quasijudicial rather than administrative functions. In other States,
including practically all of the exclusive State funds, very little
time is consumed in holding hearings. In fact formal hearings
are the exception rather t h a n the rule. Some of the commissions
have found it desirable to allocate the work of the commission
among its several members. ' I n California, for example, one
commissioner has charge of the accident-prevention work of the
commission while another has supervision over compensation
matters. I n Oregon one commissioner has charge of financial
matters, one of rehabilitation, and one of safety. Similar allocation of functions exists in British Columbia, New York, Utah,
and Wisconsin.
Of the 20 States here considered the functions of 10 1 commissions are limited to the administration of the compensation law
States (.California, Michigan, New York, and Washington) have matte
important changes in the organisation of comipensation 'commissions. In
California, Michigan, and Washington the coiinmissions have been
combined with other labour-law enforcing agencies ; while in New
York the former industrial commission of five members has been
superseded by a single administrative head. Besides the United
States, the iGanadian Provinces of British Columbia and Ontario were
also included in the investigation.
1
Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nevada, Ontario, Washington, and West Virginia.

— 68 —

proper. Of these Illinois also administers the Conciliation and
Arbitration Act, while Colorado administers the minimum wage
law and is also charged with the enforcement of the Safety Act,
but this latter function is exercised by the Bureau of Labour
Statistics. Four compensation commissions 1 administer the safety
laws as well as the Compensation Act. Six commissions 2 administer the entire body of labour laws. Pennsylvania has two
agencies concerned with the administration of the Compensation
Act. One, the Workmen's Compensation Board, composed of
three members, is a judicial body which decides disputed cases
arising under the Act. The other agency is the Department of
Labour and Industry which administers all the labour laws. The
Department also administers the Compensation Act, except that
disputed cases involving formal hearings go to the. Workmen's
Compensation Board for adjudication. In the exclusive-fund
States the functions of the commission include the administration
of the insurance provisions, i.e. the formulation of insurance rates,
collection of premiums, payment of claims, etc.
In six 3 of the nine States having competitive State insurance
funds the commission also has supervision over the fund. The
immediate administration is entrusted to a manager appointed by
the commission. The amount of power and authority exercised
by these State fund managers varies. In California the manager
has practically entire control over the affairs of the fund, whereas
in Montana the fund is an integral part of the commission. Of the
other three competitive funds those of Idaho and Michigan are
under the jurisdiction of the State Insurance Departments, while
the Pennsylvania fund is under the control of a specially created
board which appoints the fund manager. On the whole, funds
under the jurisdiction and supervision of compensation commissions have been found to be better administered than those
administered by Insurance Departments.
PERSONNEL AND EXPENSES

The number of employees and the expenses of the several
commissions naturally vary greatly. They are dependent upon
the size of the State, the functions performed by the commissions
and the thoroughness with which the work is performed. As a
1

British Columbia, California, Montana, and Oregon.
Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin.
3
California, Colorado, Maryland, Montana, New York, and Utah.
2

— 69 —.
rule those commissions which have relatively the most employees
and show the largest administrative expenses also perform the
best service. In fact an efficient administration requires an adequate administrative force. But the total administrative expenses
of the commissions when compared with the total premium income
are almost negligible, averaging less than 2 per cent.
Table I shows the administrative expenses and number of
employees of the commissions and funds in the 20 States investigated. Column 2 shows the number of commissioners, and
column 3 their tenure of office. Columns 4 and 5 show the number of employees in each commission and fund. Columns 6 and 7
show the annual administrative expenses for each commission and
fund. These expenses have not been audited by the Bureau but
were accepted as reported by commission or fund. In some of the
States the commission is located in the State Capitol and a fair
rental value must be added to the expenses to make them comparable with those of commissions located in rented buildings. The
reported expenditures are for the administration of the compensation law only and do not include expenditures for accident prevention work except in the case of the California, New York, and
Pennsylvania State funds. Column 8 gives the estimated number
of employees covered by the several Compensation Acts and is
included in the table to indicate roughly the volume of business
transacted in each State. The administration expenses given, in
the case of State funds (exclusive and competitive), are all for the
year 1920 except the following: West Virginia (1919), and Montana (1919). The expenses for the commissions are all for 1919
except those for Pennsylvania, which are for 1920-1921. The number of employees are for the year 1920 except in the case of the
Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin commissions, and the Pennsylvania
fund, which are for 1919, and the Pennsylvania commission,
which is for 1921. '

— 70 —
TABLE

ANNUAL

ADMINISTRATIVE

EXPENSES

AND

NUMBER

E M P L O Y E E S O F I N D U S T R I A L C O M M I S S I O N S IN S P E C I F I E D

State

N u m b e r of
Term of
employees
N u m - office of
ber of
comcommismissioners C o m sioners (years) mission
Fund
2

A n n u a l administrative expenses 1

STATES

Commission

Fund

Estimated
n u m b e r of
employees
covered by
Compensation Act 2

Exclusive-fund
8
Î
States :
81,806
110,000
10
46
3
British Columbia
34,061
24,746
4
8
33
Nevada
443,148
6
1,008,813
214
3
Ohio
207,052
Life
500,000
72
3
Ontario
202,208
4
98,910
119
203,595
3
Oregon
6
191,458
89
80,423
3
Washington
6
212,812
42
West Virginia
1
Competitive-fund
611,941
175,270
511,357
4
237
3
77
States :
56,598 *
6
137,157
17,800 5
9
3
18
California
15,542
6
50,119
34,392
15
3
5
Colorado
63,915 *
6
188,433
26,000
8
3
21
Idaho
61,551
6
597,585
42,986
16
27,000 4
3
4
28
Maryland
422,447
6
56,826
9,000 5
3
3 a
21
Michigan
334,063
5
2,503,020
385,665
173
5
263
Montana
25,000 5
0
2,149,867
336,103
85
3
159
New York
60,396
17,412
9
3
10
Pennsylvania
Utah
119,297 6
871,890
4
57
5
Private-insurance
4
13
5
27,919
502,729
States:
5
83
6
159,855
1,109,134
Illinois
6
22
3
36,855
405,009
Indiana
Massachusetts
1
Wisconsin
Figures do not include expenditures for accident prevention, except California,
New York, and Pennsylvania State funds. In the following States the offices of the commission and fund are located in the State Capitol, the rental value of which must be added
to the given expenses m order to make them comparable with those of the other States :
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
ä
Estimate based on Federal census of occupations for 1910.
8
Two are ex-olficio members.
4
Includes expenses of State fund.
5
Approximately.
6
Includes expenses for administering the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (approximately ?10,000).

The source from which administrative expenses of the State
insurance funds and compensation commissions are paid are
shown in table II. It will be noted that the administrative expenses
of all of the exclusive State funds except Ohio and Washington
are paid out of the premiums. However, in some of these States
a part of the expenses are borne by the State. For example,
in British Columbia and West Virginia the salaries of the
commissioners are paid by State appropriation and not from
the premiums, while in Ontario the expenses are paid out of the
consolidated revenue fund to the extent of $100,000 annually.
Of the nine competitive State funds the administrative expenses of all but two (Colorado and Montana) are paid out of the

— 71 —
premium income. In three of these States, however (California,
Pennsylvania, and Utah), the legislature appropriated certain
aimounts to assist the funds in organising and meeting their initial
expenses.
On the 13 industrial commissions here considered, the administrative expenses of all but two (Maryland and New York)
are paid from State appropriations. In the two excepted States
the expenses are paid through a tax levied on the insurance companies and self-insurers of the State.
TABLE II. SOURCE FROM WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
OF STATE INSURANCE FUNDS AND COMPENSATION COMMISSIONS
ARE PAID
State

How paid

Exclusive State funds:
British Columbia
Nevada
N o r t h Dakota
Ohio
Ontario
Oregon
Washington
West Virginia
Competitive State
California

funds:

Colorado
Idaho
Maryland
Michigan
Montana
N e w York
Pennsylvania
Utah
Industrial commissions:
California
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New York
Pennsylvania
Utah
Wisconsin

Premiums, except salaries of commissioners, w h i c h
are paid from appropriations.
Premiums, except printing.
Premiums ( m a x i m u m $50,000).
State appropriation.
$100,000 annually appropriated; rest from p r e m i u m s .
Premiums ( m a x i m u m 10 per cent.of premium income;
S t a t e pays into fund one-seventh of amount contributed by employers and employees.
State appropriation.
Premiums, except salary of commissioner, which Is
paid from appropriations.
Premiums, except t h a t S t a t e originally appropriated
$100,000.
State appropriation
Premiums.
Do.
Do.
State appropriation.
Premiums.
Premiums since 1 July 1919, prior from State a p p r o priations.
Premiums, except t h a t S t a t e originally appropriated
$40,000.
State appropriation and rehabilitation fund.
State appropriation.
State appropriation and special d e a t h fund.
State appropriation.
Do.
Tax on insurance carriers and self-insurers ( m a x i m u m $60,000).
State appropriation.
Do.
Do.
Tax on insurance carriers and self-insurers.
State appropriation.
Do.
Do.

SALARIES OF COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES

Table III shows the annual salaries of ccwnimissioners and
principal officers and employees of commissions and funds in
specified States. .

— 72 —
TABLE III. ANNUAL SALARIES OF COMMISSIONERS AND PRINCIPAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF COMMISSIONS AND FUNDS
IN SPECIFIED STATES
Commission
chairman

State

British Columbia 6,500
California
5,000
commission
California fund
—'
Colorado
4,000
Idaho
commission
3,000
I d a h o fund
—
Illinois
5,000
Indiana
4,000
Maryland
5,000
Massachusetts
5,500
Michigan
commission
3,500Michigan fund
—
Montana
6,000
Nevada
4,000
New York
commission
8,000
New York fund
—
Ohio
5,000
Ontario
10,000
Oregon
3,600
Pennsylvania
commission
7,5002
Pennsylvania
fund
—
Utah
4,000
commission
U t a h fund
—
Washington
4,200
West Virginia
6,000
Wisconsin
5,000

Commissioner

5,000

Fund
manager
S

3,000

—

5,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
3,500

—
—
—
8,000

—

5,000
7,500
3,600

—
—
5,000

Statistician

Clerk

Stenographer

2,200

S
2,200

S
1,260

840-1,080

10,000
3,000

3,150
3,600
3,000

3,150
2,400
3,000

2,400

3,000
1,800
1,800

1,080-1,320
720-960
1,200

1,200-1,500
900-1,140
1,200

1,380
2,500

—
—
—.
2,500

1,020
900-1,200
900-1,440
1,080-1,200
960-1,200
780-900

1,200
1,200
1,200
1,500
960-1,200

—
—
1,200
—

1,000-1,200
1,000
1,200
1,500

1,000-1,200
1,100
1,200
1,500

—
—.
1,800
—.
—
1,900
—.
—
2,200
—
3,000

—
—
—
3,000
—•
—
3,300

1,680
1,920
3,300
2,500
3,000
4,500

2,100

2,100
1,800

1,500
3,000

6,000

7,000
4,000

—

6,0001
3,000
2,400
4,490
2,268

5,000

3,600

—'
—.
8,000
—
—
—
7,500

4,000
4,200

Chief
actua r y or
auditor

4,200

7,000

—

Claims
manager

—

5,000

—
4,000

Secretary

2,500

—

—.

3,000
4,490

—

—.

1,500
3,300

—
—
—
2,400
2,200

—
—
~

—.

3,000
3,600
3,750

—

4,000
3,500

—
836

—

—
3,900

—>

4,5001

5,000

1,800

1,200

1,020

3,000

1,500

1,050

—,

1,500

1,020-1,140
1,500
840-1,200
1,200-1,680
1,020

1,200
1,080
900-1,200
1,080-1,200
1,200

1,680
3,000

1,080

1,800
2,100
2,400
3,650

2,400

2,100
2.400
3>00

2,100

—
—
3,000

2,400

600-900
840-1,200

—
—•
600-900
1,020

780-1,140

Director of Bureau of Workmen's Compensation.
This is the salary of the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The
salary of (he Commissioner of Labour and Industry is $10,000.
1

The salaries for each of the several employees are not strictly
comparable, because their duties and functions are not always
identical. In some States, for illustration, the secretary also has
charge of the claims department or the actuarial and statistical
work. In others the chief actuary is also the chief statistician, the
employee bearing the title of statistician 'being merely statistical
clerk. Then, too, because of the great difference in importance
and functions similar positions in, say, New York and in Idaho
would hardly be comparable.
In four 1 of the States the chairman receives a larger salary
than the other members of the commission. The salaries of State
fund managers show the greatest variation, ranging from $10,000
1

British Caluirriibia, Massachusetts, Ontario, and Pennsylvania.

— 73 —
in California to $2,100 in Montana. The manager of the California State fund receives a higher salary not only than a n y other
manager but than a n y compensation commissioner with the single
exception of the chairman of the Ontario board. I n fact, the California State fund 'manager is paid twice the salary received by the
members of the commission, by whom he is appointed a n d who
fix his remuneration. This is the only instance in which a subordinate officer receives a higher salary than (members of the
commission.
§ 3 . -— Statistics
A highly important function of an administrative authority
in charge of workmen's compensation is the compilation and
analysis of statistics of industrial accidents. The following statement was made by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics in
1920 and in essentials applies to the present situation:
The most cursory examination will show that the official
industrial accident statistics of the United States are lamentably
weak in ... vital particulars. No one State has yet published statistics
that are at all adequate to its own needs, and no two States
have produced results that are in any way comparable. One State
department follows the census classification of industries, another
uses the schedules of the old liability manual, a third the literal
classifications of the compensation insurance manual. The classification of accident causes is sometimes so meagre as to be of little
value for prevention, sometimes so prolix and ill-digested as to
afford no comprehensive view. The classification of injuries ranges
from the simple division into fatal and non-fatal to an individual
list of permanent disabilities—the mere raw material of statistics.
While weightier matters have been thus neglected, much time and
labour have been expended upon such unprofitable subjects as race,
conjugal condition, day of the month, day of the week, and hour of
the day.
In the five years of its work, the results of which are set forth
in this bulletin, the Committee on Statistics and Compensation Insurance Cost (of the International Association of Industrial Accident
Boards and Commissions) has attempted to overcome in some degree
this lack of uniformity and comparability of accident reports and
statistics. Its work of standardisation may properly be classified
as follows :
(1) Standardisation of definitions and accident-reporting practices.
(2) Classification of industries according to the nature of the
business.
(3) Classification of the causes of accidents.
(4) Classification of accident by location and nature of injury
and extent of disability.
(5) Formulation of standard tables for the presentation of accident statistics.

— 74 —
(6) Determination of a proper base for the computation of accident rates.
(7) Formulation of a standard scale of weights designed to
express the severity of accidental injuries in terms of time
loss.
(8) Determination of a standard method for computing compensation insurance costs 1 .
Unfortunately, while great interest has been expressed in the
work of the committee, little practical amplication has been made
of its conclusions.
An attempt made by Dr. Lucian W. Ghaney, of the United
States Bureau of Labour Statistics, in 1923, to colleot industrial
accident statistics for the entire country showed that the information obtainable was meagre in the extreme. " F o r 42 States information was obtainable concerning fatal and non-fatal accidents;
for 22 States a classification of accident by industries: for 18
States a classification by cause of injury; for 12 States a classification by nature of injury; for 11 States a classification by
location of injury; for 2 States the amount of exposure; a n d for
3 States the severity of accidents" 2 . Other attempts to secure
comprehensive statistics of industrial accidents in the United
States have been equally barren of resullts.

Standardisation of Industrial Accident Statistics ; Reports of the
Committee on Statistics and Compensation Insurance Cost of the
International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Í91S-1949, ¡pp. 6-7, Bulletin ¡No. 276, United States Bureau of Labour
Statistics. Washington, Goveirniment Printing Office, 1920.
2
Lucian W. <CHANEY : Statistics of Industrial Accidents in the
United States, p. 3, Bulletin No. 339, United States Bureau of Labour
Statistics. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923.

CHAPTER VI
TENDENCIES1
SCOPE

There seems to be no trend in the direction either of elective or
of compulsory Workmen's Compensation Acts. There are now
approximately twice as many of the former as of the latter type.
Examination of laws enacted prior to 1 January 1916 and of those
enacted subsequent to that time reveals approximately the same
proportions. The various Acts have broadened their coverage in
respect of types of employment covered. There has, however, been
no tendency to extend coverage to farm labour and domestic service, nor have other exclusions from coverage been to any noticeable extent eliminated. There have been some, but no significant,
changes in numerical exemptions. They have been eliminated
from some Acts, and the number of employees required to bring
an employer within an Act reduced in others, but 21 Acts still
make such exemptions.
INJURIES COVERED

Occupational Diseases
The most important development in the coverage of injuries
has been the extension of Compensation Acts to cover occupational diseases generally or in part. Nine Acts under which these
diseases were originally excluded now cover them. In three of
the five Acts under which they were originally included by interpretation, they are now covered by a specific provision.
Disfigurement
Provisions for the compensation of disfigurement have been
introduced into about one-third of the Compensation Acts and
extended in certain others. These provisions were probably stimulated largely by a court decision in New York that a workman
could recover for disfigurement under the common law since the
Compensation Act of that State, at the time suit was brought, made
no provision for disfigurement.
1
For the purposes of this discussion the Federal Act oí 1908 will
be disregarded.

— 76 —
BENEFITS

Waiting Period °
The length of the waiting period has shown a marked tendency to decrease. The one-week waiting period is now generally
accepted, 28 Acts having made such provision. The longest waiting
period required is two weeks and is found in five Acts. In 1920,
13 Acts provided for a two-weeks waiting period, 22 for one week,
while in 1916 the two-weeks waiting period was generally accepted.
The Acts of 32 jurisdictions have at some time called for a waiting period of two weeks or more. The effect of the waiting
period has been further minimised by the provision of retroactive
benefits in the majority of the Acts. Such benefits were provided
in only 10 of the original Acts. Four of these 10 have decreased
the length of time after which benefits become retroactive. Only
one has abrogated the retroactive feature.
Percentage Paid in Disability Cases
There is a distinct tendency to increase the percentage paid in
disability cases. Only four Acts 1 originally provided for the
payment of 662/3 per cent, of wages. There are now 12 Acts so
providing, the eight additional having increased their allowance
from 50 per cent. In. addition to these, percentages have been
increased in eight other laws since their original enactment. There
seems, however, to be no tendency to provide for more liberal percentages in the original enactment of compensation laws.
Specific Dismemberment Schedule
There has been some slight liberalisation and rearrangement
of specific dismemberment schedules, but the principal change
has been in the direction of making benefits under such schedules
additional to other compensation, rather than in lieu of other compensation. This change has been made in 12 Acts.
Death Benefits
Death benefits' have been liberalised in about the same proportion as total disability benefits. There is no discernible tendency to change the method of paying, either in the direction of a
fixed percentage or of percentages graded according to extent of
dependency and relationship.
1

New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and United 'States.

— 77 —

"No-Dependants" Cases
While there seems to be no marked disposition to require the
payment of a sum of money for the purpose of creating a fund for
special purposes in cases where a workman dies as a result of
industrial injuries leaving no dependants, such provision as
has been made for these cases is found only in the later Acts and
amendments to earlier Acts.
Non-Resident Alien Dependants
Under the system of employers' liability, non-resident aliens
were, in general, accorded the same treatment as citizens of the
United States. There is an increasing tendency to discriminate
against such claimants, over one-half of the Acts denying them
equal treatment, while, in 1913, slightly less than one-third
discriminated against them.
Maxima and Minima
The maxima and minima applying to periodical payments of
compensation have generally been increased. Maximum total
amounts have been generally increased and, in a few cases,
removed. There has been scarcely any change in. provisions
specifying the maximum time during which payments may be
made.
Medical and Surgical Benefits
While the majority of Workmen's Compensation Acts still
impose limits on medical and surgical benefits, 10 Acts provide for
unlimited benefits, an extension which is largely the result of
recent legislation. A considerable number of Acts empower the
administrative authority to order increases in benefits with or
without limits. In those Acts in which definite limits are retained
they have been quite generally liberalised.
Rehabilitation
Under the stimulus of the Federal law provision has been
made quite generally for vocational rehabilitation, though usually
by separate enactment.
Commutation of Payments.
There has been practically no change in provisions dealing
with 'commutation of periodical payments into lump sum
payments.

— 78 —
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

There is no tendency to require insurance of the compensation
obligation. It seems to be an accepted principle that employers
should be given the privilege of carrying their own risk if they are
able to do so, but that otherwise they must furnish security in the
form of a bond or of insurance.
STATE FUNDS

There is apparently no well-defined tendency in the attitude
of (legislatures towards provision for State funds. There is a slight
tendency towards the competing form of fund. The following table
indicates the years in which laws have been passed providing each
type of fund :
Year of enactment
of laws

Number of laws providing
exclusive funds

Number of laws providing
for competing State funds

1911

1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919

0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
8

. 1
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
9

REGULATION OF INSURANCE

The regulation of insurance carriers, to some extent in respect
of solvency, and to a very considerable extent in respect of rates,
has become more strict and more efficient.
ADMINISTRATION

In provision for the administration of Workmen's Compensation Acts there has been no noticeable change of attitude. Recent
Acts confirm the general approval of the appointment of special
administrative bodies for this 'purpose.

APPENDIX I

Number of Persons Subject to Compensation Acts 1Thus far only the theoretical or statutory scope of the compensation laws has been discussed, without reference to its application
to actual conditions in the several States. But what do the various
inclusions and exclusions really mean when applied in each State ?
How many employees are actually excluded through the non-hazardous, or numerical, or agricultural, or domestic service exemptions ?
Then, again, how does the same statutory exclusion affect different
States ? ' The exemption of agriculture in Rhode Island, for instance,
is of little importance as compared to a similar exemption in Texas.
An attempt has been made to work out the number of employees
affected by compensation laws in the various States. The computations are based upon the Federal occupation census of 1910. The
absolute ligures of the census of 1910, of course, understate the numbers as they exist at present, but probably the percentages would
remain practically the same except in the case of such States as have
witnessed a marked change in the character of their industrial development. These computations, although based upon a detailed
study of the census figures, are in some cases merely estimates, and no
claim is laid to such accuracy as the figures would suggest. The aim
has been, however, to maintain uniformity of treatment as between
States, so that while the percentage of error for a given State may
be considerable, the percentages given would show the relative status
of each State with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The method adopted has been as follows: The employers (including farmers, independent workers, etc.) were first deducted from the
number gainfully employed as reported by the census, the remainder
being the bona fide employees o<r wage-earners; from the latter group
were then excluded those employees exempted by the provisions of
law as interpreted by the court or commission of each State. It has
been difficult, and in some cases impossible, to apply the census
classifications to those of the Compensation Acts. The classifications
as enumerated in the census and in the laws do not agree, and furthermore the census gives occupations only and does not classify persons
employed according to industry or as to whether they are employees.

1
Oarl HOOKSTADT: Comparison of Workmen's Compensation Laws
of the United States and Canada up to i January 49%0. Bulletin
No. 275, united States Bureau of Labour Statistics. Washington,
Government Printing Office, 1920.

— 80 —
Table I shows the number of persons gainfully employed * ; the
number of employers, and the per cent, this group is of the total
gainfully employed ; the number of employees covered and not
covered and the per cent, these groups are of the total gainfully
employed; and the per cent, the employees covered and not covered
are of the total employees. The phrase "gainfully employed" is used
in the same sense as used in the census, i.e. it includes all persons
engaged in any gainful occupation irrespective of whether they are
employees, employers, or independent workers.
As already stated, the absolute figures are based on the Federal
Census of 1910, and therefore would not state the facts as they
exist at present. They are given here primarily for the purpose
of showing the relative numerical importance of the several States
and oí emphasising the large number of persons (over 10,000,000)
who cannot possibly be covered under any existing Compensation
Act. In the number of persons gainfully employed (col. 1) Federal employees and interstate railroad employees have not been included, on
the ground that they are not subject to State laws. The percentages
employers, employees covered by the Act, and employees not covered
by the Act are of the total gainfully employed (cols. 3, 5, and 7) are
given chiefly to show to what extent the number of employees is
affected by different industrial conditions. As would be expected, in
agricultural States the percentage of employees is relatively small,
while in industrial States it is large. The eight States in which over
50 per cent, of persons gainfully
employed belong to the employing
class are agricultural States 2 , while 3the four most intense industrial
States have a small employing class . The last two columns (8 and
9) show the percentage of employees theoretically covered and not
covered by the Acts. As already explained, it is assumed that all
employers in elective States subject to the Compensation Act have
accepted its provisions.
1
The figures in the table do not include Federal employees and
interstate railroad employees, on the ground that such persons are not
subject to State laws. The number of such employees in each of the
compensation States is given below. The sum of these figures added
to the total persons gainfully employed (column 1 of the table) would
correspond to 'the total pensons gainfully employed as given in the
census of occupations, 1910.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

19,917
1,225
7,109
48,832
20,138
' 10,864
3,807
3,142
7,598
105,210
43,644
40,093
38,601
24,429
19,872
10,909

Maryland
17,945
134,318
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
33,414
1,567
Porto Rico
Michigan
32,186 .
6,977
Rhode Island
Minnesota
46,919
8,099
South Dakota
Missouri
46,974
25,771
Tennessee
Montana
19,402
52,147
Texas
Nebraska
23,220
9,511
Utah
Nevada
3,761
5,057
Vermont
5,950
New Hampshire
32,593
Virginia
38,502
New Jersey
33,212
Washington
7,625
New Mexico
22,836
West Virginia
105,850
New York
30,252
Wisconsin
9,809
74,952
North D a k o t a
12,811
Wyoming
16,210
Ohio
1,282,090
Total
18,830
Oklahoma
Oklahoma,
58.1; Texas, 57.5; South Dakota, 56;
Oregon

2
Alabama, 61.6;
North Dakota, 55.3; Tennessee, 52.8; Nebraska, 50.4; Kentucky, 50.1.
/Rhode Island, 14.9; Massachusetts, 15.7; New Jersey, 16.6; Connecticut, 17.9. The small percentage of employers in the two agricultural Territories of Hawaii (11.5) and Porto Rico (15.4) is due to the
large plantation system, employing many labourers.

TABLE I .

ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER AND PER CENT. OF PERSONS
AFFECTED BY COMPENSATION ACTS
[The estimate of "employees covered" used in this table are made on the assumption that
all elections provided for by law have been ¡made. Owing to lack of definite information,
no estimates have been made of employees unprotected because of failure of employer to
elect under elective Acts.]
Employers (includes farmers, independents, etc.)

State

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Porto Rico
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Non-compensation States
(7)
U. S. civilian8
employees
Interstate
railroad
employees
1

Total
persons
gainfully
employed

Number

Per
cent.
of total
gainfully
employed
3

Employees
Covered b y Act

Number

Per
cent.
of total
gainfully
employed
5

Per
Per.
cent.
cent.
ememployees ployees
Per
not
cent. covered
are of covered
of total t o t a l
are of
gaintotal
emfully ployees ememployees
ployed
8
7
9

N o t covered by Act

Number

977,607
38,848
80,716
1,058,836
318,586
479,598
82,056
98,052
123,490
2,191,568
993,066
786,220
582,732
842,551
659,311
294,548
523,219
1,497,654
1,080,812
788,533
1,241,362
159,345
417,894
41,149

602,146 " 61.6
5,300
13.6
18,742
23.2
254,804
24.1
101,214
31.8
85,985
17.9
22,534
27.5
11,309
11.5
50,587
41.0
616,894
28.1
360,244
36.3
360,568
45.9
289,690
49.7
422,144
50.1
261,019
39.6
88,535
30.1
117,410
22.4
235,283
15.7
361,579
33.4
308,735
39.2
489,047
39.4
47,883
30.0
210,559
50.4
8,668
21.1

126,125
10,481
32,455
611,941
137,157
322,211
37,447
80,319
50,119
871,890
502,729
266,936
108,388
253,281
140,239
150,305
188,433
1,109,134
597,585
379,349
497,632
56,826
146,034
24,746

12.9
27.0
40.2
57.8
43.0
67.2
46.1
82.3
40.6
39.8
50.6
33.9
18.6
30.1
21.3
51.0
36.0
74.1
55.3
48.1
40.1
35.7
34.9
60.1

249,336
23,067
29,519
192,091
80,215
71,402
22,075
6,424
22,784
702,784
130,093
158,716
184,654
167,126
258,053
55,708
217,376
153,237
121,648
100,449
254,683
54,636
61,301
7,735

25.5
59.4
36.6
18.1
25.2
14.9
26.4
6.2
18.4
32.1
13.1
20.2
31.7
19.8
39.1
18.9
41.6
10.2
11.3
12.7
20.5
34.3
14.7
18.8

33.6
31.2
52.4
76.2
63.1
81.9
62.9
92.6
68.7
55.4
79.4
62.7
36.9
60.2
35.2
72.9
45.9
87.8
83.1
79.0
66.1
50.9
70.4
76.2

66.4
68.8
47.6
23.8
36.9
18.1
37.1
7.4
31.3
44.6
20.6
37.3
63.1
39.8
64.8
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
33.9
49.1
29.6
23.8

185,753
1,035,858
113,872
3,897,994
207,609
1,844,103
582,419
286,334
2,996,363
392,581
244,924
210,978
829,775
1,504,719
122,029
139,032
762,975
488,289

43,551
171,895
48,510
772,297
114,752
522,448
338,365
87,464
577,178
60,536
36,405
118,097
438,301
864,699
40,844
46,811
304,391
116,746

23.4
16.6
42.6
19.8
55.3
28.3
58.1
30.5
19.3
15.4
14.9
56.0
52.8
57.5
33.5
33.7
39.9
23.9

79,680
861,963
20,073
2,503,020
43,490
1,008,813
87,522
96,910
2,149,867
68,199
172,915
53,997
145,619
306,777
60,396
50,942
209,058
191,458

42.9
83.2
17.6
64.2
20.9
54.7
15.0
33.8
71.7
17.4
70.6
25.6
17.6
20.4
49.5
36.6
27.4
39.2

62,522
2,000
45,289
622,677
49,367
312,842
156,532
101,960
269,318
263,846
35,604
38,884
245,855
333,243
20,789
41,279
249,526
180,085

33.7
0.2
39.8
15.9
23.8
17.0
26.9
35.6
9.0
67.2
14.5
18.4
29.6
22.1
17.0
29.7
32.7
36.9

56.0
99.8
30.7
80.1
46.8
76.3
35.9
48.7
88.8
20.5
82.9
58.0
37.2
47.9
74.4
55.2
45.6
51.5

44.0
0.2
69.3
19.9
53.2
23.7
64.1
51.3
11.2
79.5
17.1
42.0
62.8
52.1
25.6
44.8
54.4
48.5

425,654
862,160
60,795

160,064
325,263
17,953

37.6
37.7
29.5

212,812
405,009
19,857

50.0
47.0
32.7

52,778
131,888
22,985

12.4
15.3
37.8

80.1
75.4
46.3

19.9
24.6
53.7

32,551,969

10,537,449

32.4

15,450,139

47.5 6,564,381

20.2

70.2

29.8

4,710,0001

2,901,360

61.6«

—

771,117

—

—
—

~ 1

—
—

1,400,000*

771,117

—
100.0

1,808,640

38.4a

—

—>

1,400,000*

100.0

"•—~

These figures, based upon the United States Census of 1910, do not include Federal
employees and interstate railroad employées, on the ground that they are not subject to
State laws. The total /persons gainfully employed include employers as well as employees.
8
The Alabama percentages have been applied to the non-compensation States.
» Figures as of 1 July 1919 taken from United States register.
* Does not include shop employees and others usually subject to State Compensation
Acts.

— 82 —
In computing the percentages of employees subject to the Acts
proper numerical deductions have been made for all the exclusions
and exemptions except casual labourers, those not employed for the
purpose of the employer's business, and employments not conducted
for gain. For these no separate deductions were made, because a
large proportion of such employments are automatically excluded
through the domestic service, numerical, and non-hazardous exemptions. Furthermore, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to compute with any degree of accuracy the number engaged in such
employments.
It will be noted that af the 32,551,969 persons gainfully employed
in the 45 States and Territories having compensation laws, 10,537,449,
or 32.4 per cent., belong to the employing or independent class, while
15,450,139, or 47.5 per cent., represent employees covered by Compensation Acts, and 6,564,381, or 20.2 per cent., are employees not
covered. Approximately 80 to 85 per cent, of the employing class
are farmers or home-farm labourers. On the same basis the 7 noncompensation States 1 have approximately 1,808,640 employees. The
total number of employées, therefore, in the 52 States and Territories deprived of the benefits of workmen's compensation legislation
is over 8,000,000. In addition, there are about 1,400,000 interstate
railroad employees not subject to State Acts and for which no Federal
compensation law has been-enacted.
Table II shows the States arranged in the order of the percentage
of employees covered :

Including District of Columbia.

— 83 —
TABLE I I .

COMPENSATION STATES ARRANGED IN DESCENDING
OP PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES COVERED

ORDER

[The estimate of "employees covered" used in this table are made on the assumption that
all elections provided lor by law have been made. Owing to lack of definite information no estimates have been made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to elect under elective Acts.]
P e r cent. employees
covered are of—
State
Total
employees
1

Total
gainfullyemployed
2

p e r cent, employees not
covered are of—

Total
employees
3

1
!

Total
gainfully
employed
4

0.2
New Jersey
0.2
99.8
83.2
92.6
82.3
7.4
6.2
Hawaii
88.8
7
1
.
7
11.2
9.0
Pennsylvania
8
7
.
8
74.1
12.2
1
0.2
Massachusetts
83.1
55.3
16.9
11.3
Michigan
82.9
70.6
17.1
14.5
Rhode Island
81.9
67.2
18.1
14.9
80.1
64.2
19.9
15.9
Connecticut
80.1
50.0
19.9
12.4
New York
79.4
50.6
20.6
13.1
West Virginia
79.0
48.1
21.0
12.7
Indiana
76.3
54.7
23.7
17.0
Minnesota
76.2
60.1
23.8
18.8
76.2
57.8
23.8
18.1
Ohio
75.4
47.0
24.6
15.3
Nevada
74.4
49.5
25.6
17.0
California
72.9
51.0
27.1
18.9
Wisconsin
70.4
34.9
29.6
14.7
Utah
68.7
40.6
31.3
18.4
66.1
40.1
33.9
20.5
Maine
63.1
4
3
.
0
3
6
.
9
2
5.2
Nebraska
62.9
46.1
37.1
26.4
Idaho
62.7
33.9
37.3
20.2
Missouri
60.2
30.1
39.8
19.8
Colorado
58.0
25.6
42.0.
18.4
56.0
42.9
44.0
33.7
Delaware
55.4
39.8
44.6
32.1
Iowa
55.2
36.6
44.8
29.7
Kentucky
52.4
40.2
47.6
36.6
South Dakota
51.5
39.2
48.5
36.9
New Hampshire
50.9
35.7
49.1
34.3
48.7
33.8
51.3
35.6
Illinois
47.9
2
0
.
4
52.1
22.1
Vermont
46.8
20.9
53.2
23.8
Arizona
46.3
32.7
53.7
37.8
Washington
45.9
36.0
54.1
41.6
45.6
27.4
54.4
32.7
Montana
3
7
.
2
17.6
6
2
.
8
2
9.6
Oregon
36.9
18.6
63.1
31.7
Texas
35.9
15.0
64.1
26.9
North Dakota
35.2
21.3
64.8
39.1
Wyoming
33.6
12.9
66.4
25.5
31.2
27.0
68.8
59.4
Maryland
30.7
17.6
69.3
39.8
Virginia
2
0
.
5
17.4
7
9
.
5
67.2
Tennessee
Kansas Average
47.5
29.8
20.2
70.2
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Alabama
Alaska
Columns 2 and 4 show what proportion the number of employees
New Mexico
covered
and not covered is of the total gainfully employed in the
Porto Rico

State. By bringing the two classes of percentages into juxtaposition
the effect of the industrial character of the States in determining
the percentage of gainfully employed persons subject to an Act is
brought out; for example, Illinos (55.4 per cent.) and South Dakota
(58 per cent.) have nearly the same percentage of. employees covered,
but in industrial Illinois these constitute 39.8 per cent, of the total

— 84 —
gainfully employed, whereas in agricultural South Dakota they constitute only 25.6 per cent.
New Jersey, with 99.8 per cent, of its employees covered, heads
the list of States, while ¡Porto Rico, with 120.5 per cent, stands at the
bottom. Nine States cover over 80 per cent., 18 over 70 per cent.,
24 over 60 per cent., and 31 over 50 per cent. One covers only 20
per cent., 8 cover less than 40 per cent, and 14 less than 50 per cent.
The States which include only hazardous employments stand lowest
in the scale; next come the numerical-exemption States, and these
are followed by those excluding agriculture and domestic service
only. Naturally there are deviations from the group by individual
States. Texas, for example, because of the .exclusion of her dominant
industry—agriculture—has fewer of her employees covered than
most of the hazardous States. On the other hand, Rhode Island,
which excludes all employers having less than 5 employees, has a
higher percentage of employees covered than California, which
excludes ' only agriculture and domestic service. Table III shows
the effect of the three main exclusions upon the number of employees
covered :
TABLE H I .
COMPENSATION STATES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING
TO EMPLOYMENTS EXCLUDED AND PER CENT. OB EMPLOYEES COVERED
IN EACH
[The estimates oí employees excluded used in this table are made on the assum/ption that
all elections provided for by law have been made. Owing to Jack of definite information no
estimates have been made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to
elect under elective Acts.]
All employments
covered

State

N.J.
Hawaii2

Per cent.
ol e m ployees
covered
99.8
92.6

Agriculture and
domestic service
excluded

State

Pa.
Mass. s
Mich.
W . Va.
Ind.
Minn. 3
Nev.
Cal.
Nebr.
Idaho
Iowa 3
S. Dak.
N . Dak.

Per cent.
of employees
covered
88.8
87.8
83.1
80.1
79.4
79.0
76.2
76.2
70.4
68.7
62.7
58.0
46.8

, Numerical
exclusions

State

B..I.
Conn. *
N.Y.
Ohio *
Wis.
Utah
Me.
Mo.
Colo.
Del. i
Ky. a
Vt. 3
Tex.i
Va.
Tenn. i
Ala. 3
P.R.

Per cent.
of employees
covered
82.9
81.9
80.1
76.3
75.4
74.4
72.9
66.1
63.1
62.9
60.2
55.2
47.9
45.6
37.2
33.6
20.5

Non-hazardous
exclusions

State

N.H.i
111.
Ariz, i
Wash, s
Mont.
Oreg.
Wyo. s
Md. 3
Kans. 3
Okla. 3
La.
Alaska i
N.Mex.i

Per cent.
of employees
covered
56.0
55.4
52.4
51.5
50.9
48.7
46.3
45.9
36.9
35.9
35.2
31.2
30.7

1
2

AH public employees exempted.
Hawaii exempts employments not in the usual course of the employer's business
and those not conducted tor gain.
0
Public employees partially exempted.
4
Agriculture and domestic service not specifically exempted.

Taking the median in each group as a basis of comparison there
is a difference of from 13 to 20 per cent, between each two groups
of States; 96.2 being the median for the two States including all

— 85 —
employments; 76.2 per cent, for the 13 States excluding agriculture
and domestic service; 63.1 per cent, for the 17 numerical-exemption
States; and 46.3 for the 13 non-hazardous-exemption States.
Th^ relative importance of the principal exclusions is shown
more clearly in table IV, in which the exclusions for each State have
TABLE IV.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXCLUDED UNDER COMPENSATION ACTS AND PER CENT. OF SUCH EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES W H O ARE
EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE, DOMESTIC SERVICE,
NON-HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENT, ETC.
[The estimates
all elections
no estimate
elect under

of employees excluded used in this table are made on the assumption that
provided for by law have been made. Owing to lack of definite information
have been made of employees unprotected because of failure of employers to
elective Acts.)

Total employees
excluded
State

Ala.
Alaska
Ariz.
Cal.
Colo.
Conn.
Del.
Hawaii
Idaho
111.
Ind.
Iowa
Kans.
Ky.
La.
Me.
Md.
Mass
Mich.
Minn.
Mo.
Mont.
Nebr.
Nev.
N.H.
N.J.
N. Mex.
N.Y.
N. Dak.
Ohio
Okla.
Oreg.
Pa.
P.R.
R.I.
S. Dak.
Tenn.
Tex.
Utah.
Vt.
Va.
Wash.
W . Va.
Wis.
Wyo.
Total

Of t o t a l employees excluded, per
cent, excluded by—

Number

Per
cent.

Agriculture

249,336
23,067
29,519
192,091
80,215
71,402
22,075
6,424
22,784
702,784
130,093
158,716
184,654
167,126
258,053
55,708
217,376
153,237
121,648
100,449
254,683
54,636
61,301
7,735
62,522
2,000
45,289
622,677
49,367
312,842
156,532
101,960
269,318
263,846
35,604
38,884
245,855
333,243
20,789
41,279
249,526
180,085
52,778
131,888
22,985

66.4
68.8
47.6
23.8
36.9
18.1
37.1
7.4
31.3
44.6
20.6
37.3
63.1
39.8
64.8
27.1
54.1
12.2
16.9
21.0
33.9
49.1
29.6
23.8
44.0
0.2
69.3
19.9
53.2
23.7
64.1
51.3
11.2
79.5
17.1
42.0
62.8
52.1
25.6
44.8
54.4
48.5
19.9
24.6
53.7

47.1
19.0
41.9
62.5
40.4
30.6
41.0

6,564,381

29.8

.—.

83.7
19.1
68.5
52.4
25.0
51.4
48.7
41.8
26.9
23.9
64.6
57.6
39.5
41.7
61.2
69.0
22.7

—

Domes- Numerical
tic ser- exempvice
tions !

26.8
19.5
18.6
37.5
29.5
49.5
36.5
93.4
16.3
25.5
31.5
19.4
17.3
39.4
27.4
37.4
31.5
57.3
35.4
40.6
37.4
22.2
38.8
31.0
22.1

—

58.5
24.1
73.2
34.6
38.3
29.6
42.7
76.4
18.7
68.1
35.4
55.1
50.8
39.8
43.5
28.5
65.6
48.0
53.0

15.4
63.2
26.8
41.7
18.0
19.8
57.3
18.2
50.4
31.9
32.5
28.9
35.7
30.2
36.5
20.3
31.8
42.4
18.6

40.6

35.2

21.0
0.2

—.
—

30.1
19.9
22.5

—,
—
—
—.
—
9.0
9.2
—

•

20.8

—
—
—.
—
23.1
—
—
—
3.4
—
22.0

Of total employees, per cent. exeluded b y -

Non-hazardous
and
Agriother
culture
exemptions
5.1
61.3
39.5

—
—
—.
—.
6.6
.—.
55.4
—
28.2
48.6

—
23.9
—.
41.6
18.8

—
1.8
—
36.1
—
—
51.8
100.0
4.1

31.3
13.0
20.0
14.9
14.9
5.6
15.2

—

25.5
8.5
14.1
19.5
15.8
20.4
31.6
11.3
14.2
2.9
10.9
12.1
13.4
20.3
18.1
16.4
10.0

—.

—
-—
9.6
—

—
28.4

40.5
4.8
38.8
8.2
24.6
15.2
4.8
60.7
3.2
28.5
22.2
28.7
13.0
17.8
23.7
13.8
13.0
11.8
28.4

8.2

16.0

12.1

12.8

—

23.7
4.5

—
—
3.0
30.9

—

19.7
9.5
13.5
30.0
20.0

Does not include agriculture or domestic service.

—
.—.
—
39.2
50.6

—
2.4
—.
—
21.3
6.5

—
—
•—
51.2
2.6

Domes- N u m e r tic ser- e xical
empvice
tions i

17.8
13.4
8.9
8.9
10.9
8.9
13.5
7.4
5.8
11.4
6.5
9.4
10.9
15.7
17.6
10.1
16.9
6.9
6.0
8.3
12.7
10.9
11.5
7.4
9.7

•—.

10.6
12.6
14.3
9.9
11.6
10.2
6.4
14.4
8.6
13.5
20.4
15.0
9.1
13.5
19.8
9.8
6.3
10.4
10.0
10.5

13.9
0.2

—
—

11.1
3.6
8.4

—
—
—
—.
—
5.3
3.7

—
5.7
—
—
—
.—
.
7.8
—
—.
—
1.5
—
2.9
2.5

—.
5.6
2.9

—.
—.
2.4
5.3

•—.

12.4
4.9
3.5
13.4
10.9

—
—
2.4
—
2.5

Non-hazardous
and
other
exemptions
3.4
42.2
18.7

—
—
—
—,
—
—
24.7
—
8.4

31.1

—
—
23.0
15.6
2.4

•0.6
——
17.9
—
—
22.8
0.2
15.3

—
—
—
25.1

25.9

—
1.9
—
—
7.8
3.4

—
—.
—
24.9
0.5

—
15.2
4.S

— 86 —
been divided into their main constituent elements; i.e. agriculture,
domestic service, and numerical and non-hazardous exemptions. The
purpose of this subdivision is to show what relation each individual
exemption bears to the total number of employees excluded and also
to the total number of employees in the iState. The agriculture and
domestic service exclusions have been put in separate cojumns,
irrespective of whether these employments were exempted specifically
or through the numerical or non-hazardous exclusions.
It will be recalled that 6,564,381, or 29,8 per cent, of the total employees, are not covered by compensation legislation in the 45 compensation States, and that these exclusions have been brought about
in several ways. It will be noted that of these, 40.6 per cent. * have
been excluded through the exemption of agriculture, 35,2 per cent.2
through the exemption of domestic service, 8.2 per cent. 3 through
the exemption of the small employer, and 16 per cent. 4 through the
exemption of non-hazardous and other employments. These exclusions constitute, respectively, 12.1, 10.5, 2.5, and 4.8 per cent, of the
total number of employees.
The per cent, each exclusion is of the total exclusion in any given
State depends upon the total number excluded in the State as well
as upon the number of employees in the excluded group. To illustrate, agriculture might constitute 60 per cent, of the total excluded if
farm labour and domestic service only were excluded, but would constitute a much smaller percentage of the total if non-hazardous employments also were excluded.
It will be noted that the percentage of total exclusions due to
agriculture alone ranges from 18.7 per cent, in Rhode Island to 83.7
per cent, in Idaho, while the exclusion due to domestic service ranges
from 15.4 per cent, in New Mexico to 93.4 per cent, in Hawaii. The
percentage of employees excluded by exempting the small employer is
much less than either the agriculture or domestic service exclusions.

1
2,663,123 employees.
employees.

- 2,311,829 employees.

539,359 employees.

« 1,050,070

APPENDIX II

Provisions of Laws governing Specified Occupational
Diseases or Processes
ILLINOIS
SECTION 2. Every employer in this State engaged in the carrying
on of any process of manufacture or labour in which sugar of lead,
white lead, lead Chromate, litharge, red lead, arsenate of lead, or paris
green are employed, used or handled, or the manufacture of brass or
the smelting of lead or zinc, which processes and employments are
hereby declared to be especially dangerous to the health of the employees engaged in any process of manufacture or labour in which
poisonous chemicals, minerals or other substances are used or
handled by the employees therein in harmful quantities or under
harmful conditions, shall provide for and place at the disposal of the
employees engaged in any such process of manufacture and shall
maintain in good condition and without cost to the employees proper
working clothing to be kept and used exclusively for such employees
while at work, and all employees therein shall be required at all
times while they are at work to use and wear such clothing ; and in
all processes of manufacture or labour referred to in this Section
which are unnecessarily productive of noxious or poisonous dusts,
adequate and approved respirators shall be furnished and maintained
by the employer in good condition and without cost to the employees,
and such employees shall use such respirators at all times while
engaged in any work necessarily productive of noxious or poisonous
dusts.
SECTION 15, (b), 1. If an employee is disabled or dies, and his
disability or death is caused by an occupational disease arising out
of and in the course of his employment in one or more of the occupations referred to in Section 2 of this Act, he or his dependants,
as the case may be, shall be entitled to compensation, in the same
manner and subject to the same terms, conditions and limitations
as are now or may hereafter be provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act for accidental injuries sustained by employees arising
out of and in the course of their employment ; and for this purpose
the disablement of an employee by reason of an occupational disease,
arising out of and in the course of his employment in one or more
of the occupations referred to in Section 2 of this Act, shall be treated
as the happening of an accidental injury 1 .
MINNESOTA
SECTION 67 (8). If the employee, at or immediately before the date
of disablement, was employed in any process mentioned in the second
column of the schedule of diseases in subsection (9) of this Section,
and his disease is the disease in the first column of such schedule set
* Occupational Diseases Law, State of Illinois. House Bill No. 250,
Session of 1911. As amended by House Bill 786, Session of 1921, and
by House Bill 228, Session of 1923.

opposite the description of the process, the disease presumptively
shall be deemed to have been due to the n a t u r e of that employment.
(9) For the purposes of this Act only the diseases enumerated
in column 1, following, shall be deemed to be occupational
diseases:
COLUMN 1

Description
1. A n t h r a x

COLUMN 2

of Disease

2. Lead poisoning or its sequelae
3. Mercury
quelae

poisoning

or its

se-

i. P h o s p h o r u s poisoning or its sequelae
5. Arsenic poisoning or its sequelae
6. Poisoning by wood alcohol
7. Poisoning by nitro- and amidoderivatives of benzine (dinitrobenzol, anilin, and others), or
i t s sequelae
8. Poisoning by carbon bisulphide
or its sequelae

Description of Process
Handling of wool, hair, bristles,
hides or skins.
Any process involving the use of
lead or its preparations or compounds.
Any process involving the use of
mercury or its preparations or
compounds.
Any process involving the use of
phosphorus or its preparations
or compounds.
Any process involving the use of
arsenic or its preparations or
compounds.
Any process involving the use of
wood alcohol or any preparation containing wood alcohol.
Any process involving the use of
nitro- or amido-derivatives of
benzine or its preparations or
compounds.
Any process involving the use of
carbon bisulphide or its preparations or compounds.
Any process in which nitrous
fumes are evolved.
Any process in which nickel carbonyl gas is evolved.
Any process involving the use of
any substance used as or in
conjunction with a solvent for
acetate of cellulose.

9. Poisoning by nitrous fumes or
its sequelae
10. Poisoning by nickel carbonyl or
its sequelae
11. Dope poisoning (poisoning by
tetrachlor-methane or any substance used as or in conjunction
with a solvent for acetate of
cellulose or its sequelae)
12. Poisoning by gonioma kamassi Any process in the manufacture
of articles from gonioma ka(African boxwood) or its sequemassi (African boxwood).
lae
13. Chrome ulceration or its se- Any process involving the use of
quelae
chromic acid or bichromate of
a m m o n i u m potassium, or sodium or their preparations.
14. Epitheliomatous cancer or ul- Handling or use of tar, pitch,
bitumen, mineral oil, or parafceration of the skin or of t(he
fin or any compound, product
corneal surface of the eye, due
or residue of any of these
to tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral
substances.
oil or paraffin, or any compound,
product or residue of any of
these substances
Care or handling of any equine
15. Glanders
animal or the carcass of any
such animal.
16. Compressed air illness or its Any process carried on in comsequelae
pressed air.
17. Ankylostomiasis
Mining.
18. Miner's n y s t a g m u s
Mining.

— 89 —
19. Subcutaneous cellulitis of the Mining.
h a n d (beat hand)
20. Subcutaneous cellulitis over the Mining.
patella (miner's beat knee)
21. Acute bursitis over the elbow Mining.
(miner's beat elbow)
22. Inflammation of the synovial Mining.
lining of the wrist joint and
tendon sheaths
23. Cataract in glassworkers
Processes in the manufacture of
glass involving exposure to the
glare of molten glass 1 .

NEW JERSEY
SECTION 22 (a). When employer and employee have accepted the
provisions of Section II as aforesaid compensation for personal injuries
to or for death of such employee by a n y of the compensable occupational diseases hereinafter defined arising out of and in the course of
his employment shall be made by the employer to the extent hereinafter set forth and without regard to the negligence of the employer.
SECTION 22 (b). Definitions.—-When applicable in this Act to occupational diseases the following words and phrases shall be construed
to have the fallowing meanings:
A. Compensable occupational diseases shall not include amy otiher
t h a n those scheduled below and shall include those so scheduled only
when the exposure stated in connection therewith has occuired during
the employment, and the disability has commenced within five months
after the termination of soich exposure:
Occupational Diseases:
Anthrax;
Lead poisoning;
Meroua-y poisoning;
Arsenic poisoning;
Phosphorus poisoning;
Benzene, iind its homologues, and all derivatives thereof;
Wood alcohol poisoning;
Chrome (poisoning;
Caisson disease.
B. Wilful self-exposure bo occupational diseases shall include (1)
failure or omission to observe such rules and regulations as m a y be
promulgated by said Department of Labour a n d posted in the p l a n t
by the employer, tending to the prevention of occupational diseases,
and (2) failure or omission to state truthfully to the best of the
employee's knowledge, in answer to enquiry m a d e by the employer,
the location, duration a n d nature of previous emplloyment of the employee in which he was exposed to any occupational disease a s herein
listed.
SECTION 22 (c). The compensation payable for death or
total in character and permanent in quality resulting from
pational disease shall be the same in a m o u n t ¡and duration
be payable in the same manner and to the s a m e persons

disability
a n occuand shall
a s would

1
Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Minnesota. Revised, with Amendments and (Supplementary Laws, ¿May 1923.

— 90 —
have been entitled thereto had the death or disability been caused by
an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.
A. In determining the duration of temporary and/or permanent
pai'tial disability, and the duration of payment for the disability due
to occupational diseases, the same rules and regulations as are now
applicable to accident or injury occurring under Section II of the Act
to which this Act is an amendment or supplement, shall apply.
SECTION 22 (d). Unless the employer during the continuance of the
employment siiaJll have actual knowledge that the employee has contracted a compensable occupational disease, or unless the employee or
someone on his behalf, or some of his dependants, or someone on
their behalf, shall give the employer written notice or claim that the
employee has contracted one of said compensable occupational diseases,
which notice to be effective must be given within a period of five
months after the date when said employee shall have ceased to be
subject to exposée to such oocupationail disease, no compensation shall
be payable on account of the death or disability by occupational disease
of such employee.
SECTION 22 (C). lAll claims for compensation for compensable occupational disease shall be forever barred unless a petition is filed in
duplicate with the secretary of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau,
at the State House in Trenton, within one year after date on which the
employee ceased to be exposed in the course of employment with the
employer to such occupational disease as hereinabove defined, or in
case an agreement of compensation far compensable occupational
disease has been made between such employer and such eilaimant, then
within one year .after the failure of the employer to make payment
pursuant to the terms of such agreement ; or in case a pant of the
compensation has been paid by such employer, then within one year
after the last payment of compensation.
SPJCTION 22 (f). All provisions of Section II and Section III applicable to claims for injury or death by accident shall apply to injury
or death by compensable occupational disease, except to the extent
that they are inconsistent with the provisions contained in paragraphs
22 (a) to 22 (f), both inclusive. The provisions in paragraphs 22 (a)
to 22 (f), both inclusive, shall not apply to any olaim for compensation
for injury resulting from accident1.

NEW YORK
ARTICLE 3

• Occupational Diseases.
SECTION 37.

Definitions.

„
38. Disablement treated as accident.
.,
39. Bight to compensation.
„
40. Time limit.
,,
41. Examining physicians.
„
42. Date of disablement.
„
43. Workmen, when not entitled.
„
44. Liability of employer.
„
45. Notice to employers.
„
46. Information; penalty.
„
47. Presumption as to cause of disease.
1
„ 48. Diseases
which Law
are of
accidents.
Workmen's
Compensation
the State of New Jersey. Revised, with Amendments and Supplementary Laws, April 1924.

— 91 —
SECTION 37. Definitions.— Whenever used in this article: 1. "Disability'' means the state of being disabled from earning full wages at
the work at which the employee was last employed.
2. "Disablement" means the act of becoming so disabled a s defined in subdivision 1.
SECTION 38. Disablement
treated as accident.—The
disablement
of an employee resulting from an occupational disease described in
subdivision 2 of Section 3 shall be treated as the happening of an
accident within the meaning of this chapter and the procedure and
practice provided in this chapter shall apply to all proceedings u n d e r
this article, except where specifically otherwise provided herein.
SECTION 39. Right to compensation.—If
a n employee is disabled
or dies and his disability or death is caused by one of the diseases
mentioned in subdivision 2 of Section 3, and the disease is due to
the nature of the corresiponidiiiig employment as described in such
subdivision in which such employee was engaged and was contracted
therein, he or his dependants shall be entitled to 'compensation few his
death or for the duration of his disablement in accordance with the
provisions of Article 2, except as hereinafter stated; provided, however,
that if it shall be determined t h a t such employee is able to
earn wages at another occupation which shall be neither unhealthiful
nor injurious, a n d such wages do not equal his full wages prior to
the date of his disablement, the coanpensation payable shall be a
percentage of full compensation proportionate to the reduction in his
earning capacity.
SECTION 40. Time limit.—Neither
the employee nor his dependants shall be entitled to compensation for disability or death resulting from disease unless the disease is due to the n a t u r e of his employment and contracted therein within the twelve m o n t h s previous to the
date of disablement, whether under one or more employers.
SECTION 41. Examining physicians.—The industrial commissioner
shall appoint one or more physicians whose duty it shall be to
examine any claimant under this article and to m a k e report in such
form as the commissioner may require.
SECTION 42. Date of disablement.—¡For ther purposes of this Article
the date oí disablement shall be such date as the board m a y determine
on the hearing on the claim.
SECTION 43. Workmen, when not entitled.—If an employee, a t the
time of his employment, wilfully and falsely represents in writing that
he has not previously suffered from the disease which is the cause of
disability or death, no compensation shall be payable.
SECTION 44. Liability of employer.—The total compensation due
shall be recoverable from the employer who last employed the employee
in the employment to the n a t u r e of which the disease was d u e a n d in
which It was contracted. If, however, such disease was contracted
while such employee was in the employment of a prior employer, the
employer, who is made liable for the total compensation as provided by
this Section, may appeal to the board for an apportionment of such
compensation among the several employers who since the contraction
of such disease shall have employed such employee in the employment
to the nature of which the disease was due. Such apportionment shall
be proportioned to the time s°uch employee w a s employed in the service
of such employers, and shall be determined only after a hearing, notice

— 92 —
oí the time and place oí which shall have been given to every employer
alleged to be liable for any 'portion oí such compensation. If the board
find that amy portion of such compensation is payable by an employer
prior to the employer who is made liable ito the total compensation
as provided by this Section, it shall m a k e an award accordingly in
favour of the last employer, a n d such a w a r d may be enforced in the
sarnie manner a s a n award for compensation.
SECTION 45. Notice to employers.—The employer to whom notice
of death or disability. is to be given, or against whoim claim is to be
made by the employee, shall be the employer who last employed the
employee during the said twelve months in the employment to the
n a t u r e of which the disease was due and in which i/t was contracted,
and such notice and claim shall be deemed seasonable as against prior
employers.
SECTION 46. Information;
penalty.—The employee or his dependants, if so requested, shall furnish the last employer or the board
with such information a s ito the names and addresses of all his other
employers during the said twelvie months, as he or they m a y possess;
and if such information is not furnished, or is not sufficient to enable
such last employer to take proceedings against a prior employer under
Section 44, unless it be established that the disease actually was contracted wihie the employee was in his employment, such last employer
shall not be liable to pay compensation, or, if such information is not
furnished or is not sufficient to enable such last employer ito take
proceedings against other employers under Section 44, such last employer shall be liable only for such part oí the total compensation
as under the particular ciraumstances the board may deem just; but
a false statement in the information furnished as aforesaid shall not
impair the workman's rights unless the last employer is prejudiced
thereby.
SECTION 47. Preswnption
as to ¡the .cause af disease.—If the
employee, at or immediately before the date of disablement, was
employed in any process mentioned in the second column of the
schedule of -diseases in subdivision two of Section 3, and his disease
is the disease in the first column of such schedule set opposite the
description of the process, the disease presumptively shall be deemed
to have been due to the n a t u r e of that employment.
SECTION 48. Diseases which are accidents.—Nothing
in this Article
shall affect the rights of an employee to recover compensation in respect to a disease to which this Article does not apply if the disease is
an accidental personal injury within the meaning of subdivision 7 of
Section 2 of this chapter \
GROUP 19 (2). Occupational
diseases.—Compensation
shall be
payable -for disabilities sustained or death incurred by an employee
resulting from the following occupational diseases:
COLUMN 1

Description
1. Anthrax

of Disease

COLUMN 2

Description of Process
Handling of wool, hair, bristles,
hides or skins.
2. Lead poisoning or its sequelae Any process involving the use of
lead or its preparations or compounds.
1
Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New York. Revised, with A m e n d m e n t s and Supplementary Laws, May 1924.

— 93 —
3. Zinc poisoning or its sequelae Any process involving the use of
zinc or its preparations or compounds or alloys.
4. Mercury poisoning or its seque- Any process involving the use of
lae
mercury or its preparations or
compounds.
5. Phosphorus poisoning or its se- Any process involving the use of
quelae
phosphorus or its preparations
or compounds.
6. Arsenic poisoning or its se- Any process involving the use ol
quelae
arsenic or its preparations or
compounds.
7. Poisoning by wood alcohol
Any process involving the use of
wood alcohol or any preparation containing wood alcohol.
8. Poisoning by nitro-, hydro- and Any process involving the use of
amido-derivatives of benzene
a nitro-, hydro- or amido-derivative of benzene or its pre(dinitro - benzol, anilin, and
parations or compounds.
others), or its sequelae
9. Poisoning by carbon bisulphide Any process involving the use of
or its sequelae
carbon bisulphide or its preparations or compounds.
10. Poisoning by nitrous fumes or Any process in which nitrous
its sequelae
fumes are evolved.
11. Poisoning by nickel carbonyl or Any process in which nickel carbonyl gas is evolved.
its sequelae
12. Dope poisoning (poisoning by Any process involving the use of
any substance used as or in
tetrachlor-methane or any subconjunction with a solvent for
stance used as or in conjunction
acetate of cellulose.
with a solvent for acetate of
cellulose) or its sequelae
13. Poisoning by formaldehyde and Any process involving the use of
formaldehyde and its preparaits preparations
tions.
14. Chrome ulceration or its se- Any process involving the use of
quelae
chromic acid or bichromate of
ammonium, potassium, or sodium, or their preparations.
15. Epitheüomatous cancer or ul- Handling or use of tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil, or paraffin,
ceration of the skin or of the
or any compound, product or
corneal surface of the eye, due
residue of any of these subto tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral
stances.
oil, or paraffin, or any compound, product or residue of any
of these substances
Care or handling of any equine
16. Glanders
animal or the carcass of any
such animal.
17. Compressed air illness or its se- Any process carried on in compressed air.
quelae
18. Miners' diseases, including only Any process involving mining.
cellulitis, bursitis, ankylostomiasis, tenosynovitis and nystagmus
Processes in the manufacture of
19. Cataract in glassworkers
glass involving exposure to the
glare of molten glass *.
1

Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New York. Revised, with Amendments and Supplementary (Laws, May 1934.

— 94 —
OHIO
The following diseases shall be considered occupational diseases
and compensable as such, when contracted by an employee in the
course of his employment in which such employee was engaged at any
time within twelve months previous to the date of his disablement and
due to the matuire of any process described herein:
SCHEDULE.

Description of Disease or Injury
1. Anthrax
2. Glanders
3. Lead poisoning
4. Mercury poisoning
5. Phosphorus poisoning
6. Arsenic poisoning
7. Poisoning by benzol or by nitroand amido-derivatives of benzol (dinitro-benzol, anilin and
others)
8. Poisoning by gasoline, benzine,
naphtha, or other volatile petroleum products
9. Poisoning by carbon bisulphide
10. Poisoning by wood alcohol

Description of Process
Handling of wool, hair, bristles,
hides and skins.
Care of any equine animal suffering from glanders; handling
carcass of such animal.
Any industrial process involving
the use of lead or its preparation or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of mercury or its preparations or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of phosphorus or its
preparations or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of arsenic or its preparations or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of benzol or a nitro- or
amido-derivative of benzol or
its preparations or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of gasoline, benzine,
naphtha, or other volatile petroleum products.
Any industrial process involving
the use of carbon bisulphide or
its preparations or compounds.
Any industrial process involving
the use of wood alcohol or its
preparations.
Any industrial process involving
the handling or use of oils, cutting compounds or lubricants,
or involving contact with dust,
liquids, fumes, gases or vapours.
Handling or industrial use of
carbon, pitch or tarry compounds.

11. Infection or inflammation of
the skin on contact surfaces due
to oils, cutting compounds or.
lubricants, dust, liquids, fumes,
gases or vapours
12. Epithelioma cancer or ulceration of the skin or of the corneal surface of the eye due to
carbon, pitch, tar or tarry compounds
Any industrial ^process carried on
13. Compressed air illness
in compressed air.
14. Carbon dioxide poisoning
Any process involving the evolution or resulting in the escape
of carbon dioxide.
Any process involving the manu15. Brass or zinc poisoning
facture, founding or refining
of brass or the melting or smelting of zinc '.
1
Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Ohio. Revised,
with Amendments and Supplementary Laws, August 10i28.

APPENDIX III

Comparative Benefit Costs
Through the courtesy of the National Council on Compensation
Insurance, there has been made available for this report the results of
a comparative study of .the 'benefit schedules of tJhe Acts of thirty-two
States. A theoretical valuation of each Stafe has been made "assuming as a basis a uniform wage, the distribution of accidents contained
in the American accident table and a table of theoretical medical
differentials. The results have been translated into index numbers
with New York as a basis." The table presented below shows the
results of this study:
TABLE I .
COMPARATIVE BENEFIT COST OF VARIOUS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF 1 FEBRUARY 1 9 2 5

State

New York
Alabama
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

Permanent
Death
total
disbenefits
ability
benefits

1,000
359
476
427
492
385
549
469
437
504
469
478
435
473
606
549
497
795
518
597
383
475
363
0
352
375
510
652
568
289
4H
715

1,000
294
645
679
386
265
539
485
311
328
338
350
388
374
321
276
378
565
462
711
232
930
330
455
309
197
292
367
753
209
270
692

Majori Minora
Tem- Medical
perma- permaand
nent
nent
porary
All
hospi- benefits
dispartial partial
tal
ability
disdisability ability benefits benefits
benefits benefits

1,000
454
667
565
605
514
581
578
624
546.
457
468
497
776
715
597
503
904
441
768
448
689
433
674
667
583
427
600
636
531
500
1,025

1,000
593
758
384
699
686
493
861
706
566
565
625
651
1,193
770
469
657
941
373
791
294
875
399
793
406
713
541
758
547
498
618
806

1,000
644
956
569
835
720
813
829
714
679
796
821
953
864
1,123
947
806
1,053
565
873
944
838
570
1,015
810
1,106
683
893
1,005
722
619
1,037

1,000
821
1,000
877
1,000
772
1,000
877
877
784
833
877
944
784
969
772
957
864
679
1,000
735
762
667
938
877
883
772
883
969
679
926
969

9
1,000
553
762
587
704
585
692
696
643
599
609
635
696
756
803
652
665
882
523
800
555
730
482
653
613
692
570
730
760
521
591
899

1
Major permanent partial disability is (defined as the loss or loss of use of a hand,
a r m , foot, leg or eye, and t h e loss of hearing in bath ears. Ailso partial loss of use
is related to the benefits for total loss of use,
2
Minor ¡permanent partial is defined as loss or loss of use of thumb, finger, toe, etc.

482 521 523 553 555 57o 585 S87 59) 599 609 61S 6S5 64> 652 65Ï 6d5 692 695 696 696 70
(il

(11

(5)

(11

(51

(6i

(71

161

(91

(101 till

(121 (|S>

0«>

0**

("'

117> <!«> «9^ <2«

(Î1.1 (1%

Index, number of benefits, Workmen's Compensation Acts of 32 S
(Numbers in parentheses refer to table II, pp

— 97 —
The validity of these figuaies is subject to certain limitations. . The
distribution oí injuries by type is not uniform in the various States,
as has been assumed in the calculation of the figures for "All benefits,"' nor are wages uniform. The benefits actually paid will likewise
vary with the liberality of administrative officials and with the attitude
of the courts. The table represents a comparison of benefit schedules,
all other things being assumed to be equal. The comparative liberality of the various laws, as indicated by the index numbers for "All
benefits," is shown in the form of a diagram on page 96.
The relative position oí a State, as indicated by its index number
for "All benefits," may be quite different from its position in respect
of individual types of benefits, and each State shows a considerable
variation from one type of benefit to another.
In the following table the States are arranged in descending
order of liberality, as indicated by the index numbers for each type
of benefit and for "all benefits":

TABLE I I .

INDEX NUMBERS OF BENEFITS UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS OF 1 JANUARY 1 9 2 5
(ARRANGED IN DESCENDING ORDER)

(Base : New-York — 1000)
Death benefits

State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
H
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Index
No.

New York
1,000
Minnesota
795
Wisconsin
715
Texas
652
Maryland
606
Nebraska
597
Utah
568
Idaho
549
Massachusetts
549
Montana
518
Tennessee
510
Iowa
504
Michigan
497
Connecticut
492
Kentucky
478
California
476
New Jersey
475
Maine
473
Illinois
469
Kansas
469
Indiana
437
Louisiana
435
Colorado
427
Virginia
411
Georgia
385
N. Hampshire
383
South Dakota
375
New Mexico
363
Alabama
359
Rhode Island
352
Vermont
289
Colorado
0

Permanent
total disability
benefits
State

Index
No.

New York
1,000
New Jersey
930
Utah
753
Nebraska
711
Wisconsin
692
Colorado
679
California
645
Minnesota
565
Idaho
539
Illinois
485
Montana
• 462
Oklahoma
455
Louisiana
388
Connecticut
386
Michigan
378
Maine
374
Texas
367
Kentucky
350
Kansas
338
New Mexico
330
Iowa
328
Maryland
321
Indiana
311
Rhode Island
309
Alabama
294
Tennessee
292
Massachusetts
276
Virginia
270
Georgia
265
N. Hampshire
232
Vermont
209
South D a k o t a
197

Major permanent
total disability
benefits
State

Index
No.

1,025
Wisconsin
New York
1,000
Minnesota
904
Maine
776
Nebraska
768
Maryland
715
New Jersey
689
Oklahoma
674
California
667
Rhode Island
667
Utah
636
Indiana
624
Connecticut
605
Texas
600
Louisiana
597
Massachusetts
597
South Dakota
583
Idaho
581
Illinois
578
Colorado
565
Iowa
546
Vermont
531
Georgia
514
Michigan
503
Virginia
500
Kentucky
468
Kansas
457
Alabama
454
N. Hampshire
448
Montana
441
New Mexico
433
Tennessee
427

Minor p e r m a n e n t
t o t a l disability
benefits
Index
No.

State

Maine
1,193
New York
1,000
Minnesota
941
New Jersey
875
Illinois
8R1
Wisconsin
806
Oklahoma
793
Nebraska
791
Maryland
770
California
758
Texas
758
S o u t h Dakota
713
Indiana
706
Connecticut
699
Georgia
686
Michigan
657
Louisiana
651
Kentucky
625
Virginia
618
Alabama
593
Iowa
566
Kansas
565
Utah
547
Tennessee
541
Vermont
498
Idaho
493
Massachusetts
469
Rhode Island
406
New Mexico
399
Colorado
384
Montana
373
N. Hampshire
294

TABLE II (continued)
Temporary
disability
benefits
State
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Maryland
South D a k o t a
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Utah
New York
California
Louisiana
Massachusetts ' •
New H a m p s h i r e
Texas
Nebraska
Maine
New Jersey
Connecticut
Illinois
Kentucky
Idaho
Rhode Island
Michigan
Kansas
Vermont
Georgia
Indiana
Tennessee
Iowa
Alabama
Virginia
New Mexico
Colorado
To illustrate
o n t a n aon page
TheMfirst,

Medical
and hospital
benefits

All benefits

Index
Number

State

Index
Number

1,123
1,106
1,053
1,037
1,015
1,005
1,000
956
953
947
944
893
873
864
838
835
829
821
813
810
806
796
722
720
714
683
679
644
619
570
569
565

California
Connecticut
Idaho
Nebraska
New York
Maryland
Utah •
Wisconsin
Michigan
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Virginia
S o u t h Dakota
Texas
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Rhode Island
. Minnesota
Kansas
Alabama
Iowa
Maine
Georgia
Massachusetts
Tennessee
New Jersey
New Hampshire
Montana
Vermont
New Mexico

1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
969
969
969
957
944
938
926
883
883
877
877
877
877
877
864
833
821
784
784
772
772
772
762
735
679
679
667

State

Index
Number

New York
1,000
899
Wisconsin
882Minnesota
803
Maryland
800
Nebraska
762
760
California
756
Utah
730
Maine
730
New Jersey
704
Texas
696
696
Connecticut
692
Illinois
692
Louisiana
665
Idaho
653
652
South D a k o t a
643
Michigan
635
Oklahoma
613
Massachusetts
609
599
Indiana
591
Kentucky
587
R h o d e Island
585
Kansas
570
Iowa
555
553
Virginia
523
Colorado
521
Georgia
482
Tennessee
New H a m p s h i r e
Alabama
Montana
Vermont
variations, two diagrams
are presented.
New Mexico
a comparison of the relative
liberality of

these same
99, presents
the laws of New Mexico, South Dakota and New York in respect of
each type of benefit and of "All benefits"; the second, on page 100,
indicates the extremes of liberality in respect of the same items.
Not only do total benefits for each type of injury vary greatly
between the States, but there is further variation within each type.
For example, the schedules providing ior compensation of permanent
partial disabilities show wide variations, as is indicated by the following statement:
Table III shows the percentage of disability for specified injuries,
based on schedule of compensation for ipetrmanont total disability under
the laws of the various American States. Inasmuch as certain
American laws provide for payment during life, it would be impossible, without the introduction of the actuarial basis of expectancy, to
compute percentages for the temporary award made, and these are
therefore omitted from this comparison. The schedule of the
committee on statistics of the International Association of Industrial
Accident Boards and Commissions is also included.

cNcMj'yovK 1000

Index numbers of benefits, by types, Workmen's Compensation Ac
and New York, 1 iFebruary 1925.

Death
Oklahoma
0
New York 1000

Permanent Total
South Dakota 197
New York 1000

Major
Permanent Partial
Tennessee 427
"Wisconsin 1025

¿áfi

Minor
Permanent Partial *
New Hampshire 294
Maine
1193

Temporary
Montana 565
Maryland 1123

Extremes of liberality of 38 Workmen's Compensation Acts, by type o
Lowest

Highest

— 101 —

TABLE I I I .
COMPUTED PERCENTAGES OF DISABILITY FOR SPECIFIED
INJURIES BASED ON SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT
TOTAL DISABILITY UNDER THE LAWS OF VARIOUS STATES
Loss of—
State

Committee i
Alabama
Conn.
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Ky.
La.
Maine
Michigan
N.Jersey
N.Mexico
Okla.
Pa.
Tenn.
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wise.

Arm
Index Middle
(at Hand Thumb Anfinshoulder)
ger
ger

Ring Little
AnAnger
ger

Per
cent.

Per
Per
Per
cent. cent. cent.

50
36
40
41
57
100
50
56
50
48.
44
30
40
50
29
50
43
36
50
65
40
50

33
27
30
33
43
78
40
38
36
36
38
25
30
38
21
40
35
27
37
54
30
33

10
11
7

5
6
7

—
17

—
,
10

19
12
10
14
14
13
10
12
15
6
12

15
8
8
9
H
8
6
7
9
4
7

—
H
15
15
12
10

Per
cent.

—

6
' 11
10
7
4

Per
cent.
4
5
6

3
4
5

3
3
4

—
4

8
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
2
4

5
6
4
4
4
5
3
3
4
2
3

—
3

9
10
7
6
7
7
5
5
6
8
3
6

—
5
7
8
6
3

5
6
4
2

4
4
3
2

Leg

(at

hip)

50
32
35
41
50
92
40
50
48
48
50
30
35
44
27
35
43
32
50
65
35
50

Sight H e a r - Hearing,
Other of one ing,
Foot Great
one both
toe
toe
eye
ear
ears

Per
Per
cent. cent.
25
23
25
28
36
66
30
31
30
30
31
25
25
31
19
30
30
23
31
46
25
25

Per
Per
cent. cent.

4
5
7

1
2
3

—
3

9
12
12
6
7
7
5
5
6
8
3
6

-5
7
8
6
3

5
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2

-2

2
3
2
1

20
18
20
24
29
41
30
25
26
24
25
20
20
25
19
20
25
18
25
38
20
20

Per
cent.
5

—
10
—
—
19
—
—.
6
—
.—
—
10
• — •

—

•

—
—
—
16
10
5

1
Schedule of severity ratings formulated by the committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions.

ADEQUACY OF P A R T I A L DISABILITY SCHEDULES

The value of the foregoing table for comparative purposes is impaired to some extent because the percentages are not comparable one
with another, due to the lack of a common denominator. The schedules
for permanent total disability which were used as the bases varyconsiderably and consequently the percentages, while showing the relationship toetween permanent partial arid permanent total disabilities
in a given State, are incomparable as between different States. This
relationship is shown in Table IV, in which the scale of time losses
as determined by the committee on statistics and compensation
insurance cost of the International Association of Industrial Accident
Boards and Comimisisions is used as the base.
In formulating this schedule of severity ratings of injuries, permanent total disability, rated at 1,000 weeks, was used as tihe base
and the partial disabilities computed therefrom. The purpose of the
schedule, as already noted, was to obtain a more accurate measure
of industrial hazards, the schedule not being intended as a basis of

Per
cent.
33
27
30

—

43
100
20

—
24
—

•

—
—
—
40
26

.—.
—.
27
37
65

—
33

— 102 —
compensation awards. In fact, the committee disclaims any such
intention. Assuming, however, that the schedule is a reasonable
measure of adequacy for compensation payments, it is interesting to
note the percentages of adequacy of payments for the more important
injuries provided for by the several State compensation laws. These
percentages refer only to periods of time during which compensation
is to be paid and do not take into account the per cent, or rate of
eompensation. In computing the percentages given in the following
table the committee's schedule is taken as 100 per cent.

TABLE IV.
PERCENTAGE OP ADEQUACY OF DURATION OF PAYMENTS FOR
SPECIFIED I N J U R I E S PROVIDED FOR IN THE SEVERAL STATES, USING THE
I . A . I . A . B . C . COMMITTEE SCHEDULE AT 1 0 0 PER CENT.
Loss of—
Total
disability

State

Major
Arm
(at
Index
Hand Thumb flnger
shoulder)

Leg
(at
hip)

Foot

Great
toe

Sight
of one
eye

100

45
31
47
48
45
73
45
45
60
45
45
45
45
38
45
45
55
45
53
65
45
33
73
78
45
60
99
53
45
45
45
45
42
45
60
90

GO
35
38
60
60
60
30
60
60
40
GO
60
50
50
50
60
60
30
60
65
60
30
75
60
60
60
104
60
50
60
60
30
40
60
80
90

70
36
76
70
70
92
40
7080
60
74
90
60
60
60
70
70
40
70
78
70
40
92
84
70
70
138
70
70
70
90
40
50
70
80
70

35
42
36
39
35
57
36
35
40
40
40
40
40
30
35
35
40
. 36
43
43
35
28
58
57
35
35
76
43
32
35
40
36
34
35
48
90

50
42
52
54
50
82
50
50
60
50
50
50
50
50
60
50
60
50
60
69
50
40
82
83
50
60
111
60
50
50
50
50
48
50
56
90

75
45
95
75
75
95
38
75
150
63
75
75
50
63
63
75'
75
38
75
75
75
38
95
95
75
75
108

40
100
26
50
100
90

40
42
42
39
40
62
40
40
50
45
42
40
35
30
40
40'
40
40
45
52
40
30
62
62
40
50
83
43
40
40
40
40
34
40
48
90

75
75
38
50
75
100
63

50
52
52
57
50
64
50
50
75
50
55
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
63
54
50
50
80
65
50
. 50
87
63
50
50
50
50
50
50
66
90

Committee

100 .

Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Lousiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South D a k o t a
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

55
100
52
48
35
31
100
100
50
40
42
42
40
50

Average

—.

50
100
100
100
100
40
52
100
100
100
50
100
50

—.
55

100

—
75

— 103 —
In considering the above table it must again be borne in mind
that several States pay .compensation for total disability during the
healing period in addition to the schedule of payments for p a r t i a l disability. Two important facts stand out, however. One is the relatively
greater awards for the minor injuries, and the other is the small
proportionate a w a r d s for all i n j u r i e s . . . When the statutory wage
percentages are applied the percentages of adequacy are still further
reduced \

1
Garl HOOKSTADT: Comparison of Workmen's Compensation
Laws
of the United States and Canada up to i January Í920.
Bulletin
No. 275, United States Bureau of Labour Statistics.
Washington,
Government Printing Office, 192f> 'Tables III and IV have been brought
up to date as of 1 J a n u a r y 1925 Ly the United States Bureau of Labour
Statistics.