OCR Text |
Show QUESTION OF BLISTER CAUSES DISCUSSION SALT LAKE, July 24. To decide I whether a blister caused In tying up 1 laundry bundles la an accident arls-I arls-I ing out of or In the course of employment." employ-ment." is the question which spilt the industrial commission yesterday. ! James Bavaro. a Model laundry employe, em-ploye, .suffered a blister on his hand from tying bundles. The flnKer bc- came Infected and amputation was necessary. Chairman P A Thatcher and Com-tnlssloner Com-tnlssloner W M Knerr re of the opinion that a blister so caused Is an Lccideni within the meaning of tho law Walter P. Monson, the remaining remain-ing Commissioner, contends that Bavaro Ba-varo may have pricked the bllstci wnii v pin, thus Infecting It. He voted agaln.u the majority de-! de-! clsion. which allows payment totalling $160.18 to Ihe employe, in addition I to a medical bill of $42 Bavaro. 2. years of age. was receiving receiv-ing $16 60 a week at Ihe time of tho accident, so that tho weekly payments will bc only t'J 53 The majority decision holds that Bavaro established the fact that tho blister formed while he was tying bundles and that the blister was not an '"occupational dis'-ase " Mr. Mon-j aon contends that 'proof of a probable prob-able accident, as touching tlm and circumstance, is lacking," that thel burden of proof Is on the applicant, and Is not discharged by merely proving the los of a member. "'Corroborative "'Cor-roborative evidence of some kind Is necessary..' he adds, before Industry should be penalised, an element unfortunately un-fortunately wanting In this caso." |