Loss of one eye recovered, so far as he ever would without an operation, and that his present incapacity was not due to the accident. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remitted the case for the assessment of compensation. Lee v. William Baird & Co. (1908), 45 Scotch L. R. 717; 1 B. W. C. C. 34. A workman lost the sight of one eye. After the wound healed work of a somewhat different nature was offered to him by his employers, which work he refused, on the ground that it involved risk to the remaining eye. There was evidence that the work involved no more risk to a one-eyed man than to a two-eyed man. It was held that the work offered was suitable and compensation was refused. Elliott v. Curry & Dodd (1912) 46 Ir. L. T. 72; 5 B. W. C. C. 584. A boiler maker lost his eye by accident, and the upon healing of the wound he returned to work with his old employers, at the same rate of wages. Subsequently he discharged, on the ground of misconduct, it being alleged that he was asleep at work. The man tried to get similar employment elsewhere but failed. At the time of his return to work an award of nominal compensation was made. Upon an application to have the award increased, it found that the man was, by the loss of his eye, unable to obtain work as a boiler maker and was put in the position of a casual laborer, and that therefore he was entitled to compensation. Brown v. J. I. Thornycroft & Co. (1912), 5 B-W. C. C. 386. was was As a result of an accident years ago a workman was blind in one eye, but to all appearances had two good eyes. His employer did not know of his infirmity. He was fully capable of work. As a result of a new accident the blind eye had to be removed and he could no longer conce I his infirmity. On recovery from the effects of the operation he was unable, owing to his now patent infirmity, to obtain work either from the old employers or from anyone It was held by the House of Lords that "incapacity for work" includes inability to get work; that although after the second else. Loss of one eye accident the workman was physically as well able to do his old work as before, the disfigurement caused by the accident preventing him from obtaining such work, was incapacity for work within the meaning of the Act. Ball v. William Hunt & Sons (1912), 5 B. W. C. C. 459. The term "partial disability" as used in § 8, subd. 2 (b) of the Roseberry (Cal.) Act was held not to be restricted to physical incapacity merely, but included such injuries as circumscribed the area of employment and lessened his wage earning capacity. Christ v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., April 25, 1912. In the lastmentioned case a laborer lost an eye and it was held that this circumscribed his area of employment and lessened his wage earning capacity so as to constitute a permanent disability, within the meaning of the Act, and compensation was awarded for the period of total disability and the further sum of 65% of the man's probable weekly loss of wages, computed at $2 a week, for the full period of fifteen years limited by the Act. Christ v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., April 25, 1912. It is held that an insurer does not have the right to postpone the payment of the additional compensation provided for in Part III, § 11 of the Massachusetts Act pending the result of an operation for the restoration of vision to an injured eye, and compensation was ordered paid in accordance with this section for a period of fifty weeks, dating from the day of the injury. Bronzetti v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. A workman while engaged in shoveling sand in the defendant's plant, from an alleyway, in order to avoid an approaching team, stepped into a doorway, the door of which swung into the alleyway. The hub of the wagon caught the door and closed it, catching the workman's head between the door and the jamb and inflicting injuries which resulted in partial paralysis and loss of one eye. Compensation was awarded at the rate of five dollars a week for the period of Loss of one eye one hundred weeks. Megrigian v. Michigan Malleable Iron Co., Dec. of Mich. Arbitration Committee, Jan. 17, 1913. A workman sustained injury which resulted in the loss of his left eye. His average annual earnings were $600. After an exhaustive inquiry the commission decided that the loss of one eye impaired earning capacity to the extent of 15%. An award was therefore made of $150, as compensation for total disability for the period of twenty weeks, and the sum of $30.51 for a period of partial disability and the sum of $1.13 a week thereafter until the expiration of fifteen years from the date of the award. Charles Kuschmann v. FullerWarren Co., Wis. Indus. Com., Feb. 27, 1913. Since the above decision was rendered the Wisconsin Act has been amended allowing specific indemnities for injuries of a permanent character. em The applicant lost the left eye as a result of an injury caused by a steel chip which lodged in it while he was ployed on a drill press. At the time of the accident he was earning $750 a year. The Commission found that the workman had suffered a loss of earning power to the extent of 15% and awarded compensation of $58.42 up to the time of the hearing, in addition to $100.75 which had already been paid besides medical attention, and that the employer should thereafter pay the sum of $1.41 a week until expiration of fifteen years. E. Koenig v. International Harvester Co., Wis. Indus. Com., March 6, 1913. the nec he Applicant lost his left eye as the result of an industrial accident while in the employ of the defendant. All essary medical and surgical treatment was furnished by the employer. A glass eye was fitted in and after two week was able to perform physical labor, although it was thought it would take from six months to a year for the remaining eye to adjust itself to the work of both eyes. Applicant's claim for compensation for a permanent partial disability was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he able to do the same work that he did before the accident, was Loss of one eye and that therefore it could not be said that he had suffered a permanent disability within the meaning of the Act. Held that it was a permanent disability within the terms of the law, and that the employer's willingness to give employment at the same wage as earned before the accident does not change the general rule. The sum of $20.80 was awarded for the period of total disability, and the sum of $1.56 per week was awarded for the fifteen-year period fixed by the Act. Subsequently the applicant took an appeal to the Superior Court of Kern County, California, believing that he was entitled to a larger award than that granted by the Industrial Accident Board. The review in the higher Court is still pending. Legee v. Lacy Manufacturing Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., July 28, 1913. Applicant was injured by the explosion of dynamite caps. while in the employ of defendant. Particles of metal were driven into his flesh, and the sight of his right eye destroyed. Medical and surgical attention was furnished by the defendant, and full compensation paid for eleven months after the accident. Held that defendant should have notified the applicant of the proposed discontinuance of the monthly payments, in justice to him, and that his claim for another month's full payment was justified by his physical condition. In addition applicant was allowed six months' temporary partial disability, amounting to $3.75 a week, in order to give him a reasonable time during which to train his remaining eye to do the work of both eyes, and also because of the blood-shot appearance of the sightless eye, and the effect it would have in obtaining employment, permanent disability would amount to 15% of the daily wage which he was receiving at the time of his injury, and applicant was awarded the sum of $1.83 for 702 consecutive weeks. The total amount of benefit, outside of the medical and surgical attention, will amount to $2,015.91. The decision declared that in earlier cases it was believed the estimates were lower than justice warranted and that it was not considered that pre Complete blindness caused to eye of which sight partially destroyed cedents should be unchangeable where equity demanded an increase. Linnell v. North Star Mines Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., Dec. 11, 1913. Applicant injured his right eye. He had received compensation and hospital and medical attention had been furnished. His employer required a release from all further liability as a condition precedent to paying $28.20 to the applicant. Held that this release was a receipt and the applicant was awarded $28.14 additional compensation. Cianti v. Mt. Whitney Power Electric Co., Cal. Indus. Acc. Bd., Feb. 7, 1913. 10. One eye so injured that both cannot be used. By reason of an injury to an eye causing the removal of the lens the vision became so blurred and the image so out of alignment with the uninjured eye, that the employé's vision was no better when wearing glasses in the injured eye, than if he were not wearing them. As to the injured eye alone a correcting lens gave him four-tenths of normal vision, but without the correcting lens the vision was only three twohundredths of normal. It appeared that the use of the two eyes together was impossible even with the correcting lens by reason of the variation in alignment and the additional vision caused by the correcting lens was only available should the employé lose the sound eye. It was held that the employé had only three two-hundredths of normal vision and was entitled to additional compensation provided in Part II, § 11 (b) of the Act. Latak v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd. 11. Complete blindness caused to eye of which sight partially destroyed. A workman had received an injury to his eye ten years before, so that sight was partially destroyed, but he had some use of his eye. While in this condition he was struck in the eye by a horse's tail and inflammation set in. The eye was |