190

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Industrial Disease Compensation: a DelayedClaim.

IN a Workmen’s Compensation Act appeal, latelydealt with by the House of Lords, Lord Blanesburghremarked of a certifying surgeon that "so far as

professional skill was concerned he adequately filledhis post, but as the filler up of a form he had shownhimself a blunderer." The comment was not intendedharshly. Learned judges are aware that accuracyand success in the filling up of forms are not auto-matic ; they themselves have occasionally revealedinability to complete a printed will form so as tomake a valid testamentary disposition of their

property. The case before the House of Lords,however, displayed an unusual sequence of errors.

First of all, the certifying surgeon, having to certifyan industrial disease case, filled up the certificatewith the wrong disease-or rather he described thedisease as " epithelioma of the scrotum " insteadof using the exact description from the statutorylist of industrial diseases. Secondly, when facedwith the words in the form, "

I hereby certify thatthe disablement commenced on the - day," heneither filled in the blank nor crossed out the sentence(as the form required him to do if the blank werenot filled). This omission left it uncertain whetherhe meant to specify a date or to let the date of thecertificate stand (under Section 43 (2) of the 1925 Act)as the date of disablement. The Act treats the dateof disablement from an industrial disease as if itwere the happening of an accident for which theworkman can recover compensation. Section 14 ofthe Act stipulates that the employer must havenotice of the workman’s claim within six months.Here the certificate (the basis of the claim for com-pensation for the industrial disease) was dated

July 24th, 1929 ; but that date was more than12 months later than the date on which the workmanleft the employers’ service. He had been an operativecotton spinner; the employers had closed downtheir works entirely on June 13th, 1928, and theman had not been employed since then. The firm

repudiated liability on the ground that the claimwas out of date. Three months later the trade union

agent, acting for the workman, applied for a freshcertificate. The certifying surgeon thereupon examinedthe man again and sent another certificate, but madeyet another mistake in filling up the form. Hecorrectly described the industrial disease, but thedate of disablement was specified as " the 22nd

day of 1929," no month being inserted. After furthercorrespondence, the certificate came back completeat last ; it was dated Jan. 18th, 1930, and it specifiedthe date of disablement as "the 22nd day of May,1929." The claim, having thus been made as on

Jan. 18th, 1930, was out of time ; but the Actcontains a proviso (to Section 14) safeguarding caseswhere the failure to make a claim within the time-limit is found due to " mistake, absence from theUnited Kingdom, or other reasonable cause." Did thefacts of the case amount to " reasonable cause " forthe delay ? The House of Lords has answered " Yes."So the workman, suffering from epitheliomatouscancer after 17 years as a cotton spinner, fortunatelydoes not lose his statutory compensation by reasonof the errors which contributed to the delay in makingthe claim. But it is to be understood that Parliamentintended the time limit to be some protection to the

employers against improper claims ; and Lord

Blanesburgh adds the warning that the recentdecision is not to be taken to countenance theworkman " sitting on in the knowledge that he hascontracted a disease and doing nothing to make goodhis claim."

B.M.A. Action against Drug Stores.In the Chancery Division, on July 15th, the British

Medical Association obtained an injunction againsta defendant, trading in South-East London, whooffered for sale drugs and medical remedies bearingthe letters " B.M.A.," and who called his business the" B.M.A. Drug Stores." The defendant argued that"B.M.A." did not necessarily or exclusively denotethe British Medical Association, and that he wasentitled to use the letters. Mr. Justice Maugham,however, was satisfied that the acts of the defendanttended to injure the Association as being likely tocause its existing members to leave it and its prospec-tive members to abstain from joining it. The Asso-ciation was a purely voluntary body, dependent onsubscriptions. People who saw the words " B.M.A.Drug Stores," or the defendant’s shop-windows,might think-and ordinary members of the publicwould think-that the British Medical Associationwas somehow connected with the shops. The caseresembled the proceedings on July 13th before Mr.Justice Farwell, wherein the British Legion com.plained that a company called the British LegionClub (Street), Ltd., was conducting a club at Street,in Somerset, which owed no allegiance to the BritishLegion ; the members of the club were to be ex-Service men or other persons over age ; there was n(requirement that the members should be members ofthe British Legion. The defendant company answeredthat it had been incorporated in 1921, whereas theBritish Legion was not incorporated as such by RoyalCharter until 1925. The judge said the name of" British Legion " was well known in 1922, and it wasa fallacy to say that a voluntary association couldnot assert its right to the name ; there was clearly apossibility of confusion even if there was no actualevidence. Both the British Legion and the BritishMedical Association succeeded in obtaining the

injunction desired.

A HOSPITAL TRIBUTE.-Sir Henry Dickens,Common Sergeant of the City of London, recently unveiled,in the male ward of the Passmore Edwards Hospital, abronze tablet in recognition of the work of the DickensPlayers, of Bowes Park, who have substantially helpedthe hospital by their performances.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION.-Mr. ArthurGreenwood, the Minister of Health, on July 15threceived a deputation of Members of Parliament whourged that compulsory vaccination should be abolished,and expressed a hope that the Government would introduce,or give facilities for the necessary legislation. They believedthat all they wanted could be achieved by a one-clause Bill.The Minister said that he was bound to administer the lawas it stood. The effect of the Local Government Act hadbeen to place the administration of the Vaccination Actsin the hands of the larger local authorities, and he did notcontemplate any drastic amendment of the law until thoseauthorities had had time to gain experience of the operationof the Acts in force and furnish him with their views andadvice. He believed that complicated and highly contro-versial legislation would be necessary to secure what thedeputation desired. He must, in present circumstances,prefer the claims of other legislation to those of a Vaccina-tion Bill. While, therefore, he could have no objection tothe introduction of a Private Member’s Bill as a means of -

testing public opinion, lie could give no assurances eitherof support for such a Bill or of the introduction at an earlydate of Government legislation.