SAMUEL RUGGIERIE vs. MALVERN J. DUNLAP. Limitation of claims-Petition filed after expiration of one year.

Referee: Wm. B. Scott, Dist. No. 1. Hearing at 1115 North American Bldg., Philadelphia, Pa., March 8, 1917. Claim Petition No. 2233.

The claimant was injured Jan. 24, 1916, but no compensation agreement was entered into nor was a claim petition filed until Feb. 16, 1917. Under the provisions of Art. III, Sec. 315 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, this claim must be dismissed.

MAUDE A. WHITE vs. BALDWIN LOCOMOTIVE WORKS.

Violence to the physical structure of the body-Disease or infection naturally resulting therefrom-Septic pneumoniaEvidence-Hearsay-Expert testimony.

Referee: Wm. B. Scott, Dist. No. 1. Hearings at 1115 North American Bldg., Phila., Pa., Jan. 12 and Feb. 5, 1917. Claim Petition No. 1730.

Findings of Facts and Discussion.

"Millard F. White and the Baldwin Locomotive Works had both accepted Article III of the Workmen's Compensation Act

of 1915. Previous to Oct. 13th, 1916, Millard F. White had been in the employ of defendant company as a machinist, and in said employment on Oct. 13th, 1916, his weekly wages were $24.75, payable weekly; that he died on Oct. 21st, 1916, and that the expenses of his last sickness and burial were $122.00, none of which has been paid by defendant; that defendant had knowledge of the alleged accident that is claimed to have caused his death within fourteen days from the date when it was alleged to have occurred; that Millard F. White left to survive him a widow, Maude A. White, who resided with him at the time of his death, and the following dependent children: Bertha E., born Jan. 13th, 1908; Amelia J., born Aug. 31st, 1910, and Charles W., born February 21st, 1916.

"There are two other findings of fact necessary to base an award or disallowance:

First. Did Millard F. White receive an injury to his finger while in the employ of defendant on October 13th, 1916, and "Second. Was his death on October 21st, 1916, due to septie pneumonia caused by the injury to the finger, or was it from lobar pneumonia independent of the finger.

"There is sufficient testimony to support a finding of fact that the accident occurred to decedent's finger while at his work. It is contended by the defendant that there is nothing but hearsay evidence in the case, but with this we cannot agree. While it is true that there is no eye witness to the actual happening of the accident, it is one of those occurrences to which the probabilities are there would be no eye witness, as the testimony shows his nearest fellow employe worked some forty feet from his post. But we have this positive testimony: That his boarding mistress saw his hand the morning of the accident and noticed nothing wrong; that his brother saw his hand the morning of the accident and noticed nothing wrong; that his brother accompanied him to the entrance to defendant's plant to go to his work as usual, clearly showing that there was nothing wrong with his hand when he entered the plant; and we have the connecting link as to his continuous working in the testimony of his fellow employe, Claude S. Rowles, that decedent came to work at the usual

time that morning and worked all day. We therefore, have positive testimony that when he entered defendant's plant to go to work there was nothing wrong with his finger, and just as positive testimony that he worked continuously throughout the day at his usual employment, and just as positive testimony that before he left the plant of defendant at the close of his day's work two eye witnesses saw his finger and saw it red, swollen and inflamed, and it seems that under all the circumstances of this case we cannot help but find as a fact upon this testimony that an accident did happen his finger at some time between the hours of his starting to work and leaving his work in the evening, and this taken in connection with the testimony of Mr. Rowles that he worked continuously all day can lead to no other conclusion than that the injury to his finger happened while at his work.

"All of the foregoing testimony is uncontradicted, as defendant has offered no evidence whatever to show any condition of the finger existing prior to decedent's going to work on that morning.

"We then come to the hearsay evidence and accept it merely for its value in corroborating and bearing out the conclusions unavoidably arrived at from the positive testimony in the case, that is to say, the positive testimony shows that the injury must have happened between the time decedent went to work in the morning and the time he left in the evening, and that he worked continuously all day, and the only conclusion is that it must. have happened in the course of his employment, the so-called hearsay evidence then follows to support this conclusion in the testimony of decedent's brother that he saw him at the noon lunch hour and saw the condition of his finger and was told that it had been mashed between a shell and a steady rest, the testimony of Mr. Rowles that decedent told him between three and four in the afternoon that it had been mashed between a shell and a steady rest, and the testimony of the boarding mistress and his wife that he had told them the same thing.

"The further testimony that on Sunday, two days after the accident, he sent a telegram stating that his finger had been injured while at work and that this telegram was delivered to the

shop foreman on Monday and read by him, and as a result of this defendant sent a representative to Pleasantville to see the decedent and that he did not die until October 21st, five days afterwards. It would seem that with this testimony corroborating the positive testimony and the significant fact that defendant had ample notice of the alleged accident prior to decedent's death and failed to take any statement of decedent to contradict the notice which had been given them is more than ample to support a finding that decedent was injured on October 13th, 1916, while at his usual employment with the Baldwin Locomotive Works at Eddystone, Pennsylvania, and that fact is now found.

"We then come to the second question, was decedent's death on October 21st, 1916, due to septic pneumonia caused by the injury to the finger, or was it from lobar pneumonia independent of the finger.

"There is sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of fact that the death was caused by septic pneumonia as a direct result of the injury to the finger.

"The attending physicians, Dr. Charles V. Kaighn and Dr. H. R. Harley, of Pleasantville, N. J., are the only physicians who actually saw decedent or made an examination of him.

Dr. Harley testified that he is a graduate of the MedicoChirurgical Hospital in the class of 1908 and has practiced medicine ever since. That he saw decedent on the night of October 18th at his home in Pleasantville, and that he had an infection of the forefinger of the left hand and had been ill for several days, that his associate, Dr. Kaighn, had seen decedent during the days previous and had made five incisions on his finger or hand for drainage and that the decedent was very ill, his temperature being about 102 and that he had a rapid pulse. That he had signs of consolidation spread all over the lungs, particularly the left lung near the base, and that there was no break in the skin or any other point of infection on the body aside from the index finger of the left hand, and he positively testified that the cause of decedent's death was septic pneumonia. He did state under cross examination that all pneumonias are septic, but qualified this by the statement that in this case the infection from the fin

ger had gotten into the general circulation and had landed in he lungs, causing the consolidation which he found on physical examination, and that decedent's hand and arm were swollen and red up to the elbow.

"Dr. Kaighn testified that he is a graduate of Jefferson Medical College of the year 1914, and that he first saw decedent on October 14, 1916, when he came to his office, complaining of the forefinger of his left hand. That the finger was swollen and tender and that there were several abrasions on the palmer surface and that one of these bruises he opened. That he next saw White on October 15th, when the finger was much worse and two incisions were made. That on October 16th there were several red streaks up decedent's arm and he had a temperature of 102, had chills during the night, was short of breath and much shocked, and then stated 'I thought the infection had become general * * * I thought it had spread up his arm from the red streaks and probably been carried into the blook.' That on Tuesday, October 17th, decedent complained of pain in his left side and that on examination he found he had pleurisy over the site of pain and some dullness on percusion, and on the following day the witness concluded that decedent had pneumonia and that the cause of the consolidation in the lungs came from his hand.

"Defendant called a number of physicians of well known and recognized reputation, to wit: Dr. H. L. Northrop, of the Hahnemann Medical College, who is a professor of surgery and anatomy, but who testified a san expert, never having made an examination of decedent; Dr. Stillwell C. Burns, who is an assistant surgeon at the Medico-Chirurgical Hospital and a teacher of surgery in the College; Dr. Richard C. Casselberry, who is a graduate of the Hahnemann Medical College, and has been practicing for fourteen years and is a general practitioner and surgeon, and Dr. Walter H. Blakeslee, Medical Examiner, Department of Labor and Industry.

"All of these physicians, however, testified that they had never seen or made any examination of decedent, and were called purely in the capacity of experts and testified in a general way to the same effect, that in their opinion decedent died from lobar