ae er ABRAMS CE | Rare | OF The ; tf EOE Se CLG SI RN / UNIVERSITY OF ILLINGIS Iniv.Of ill. Library > 4 lean COMPENS) ATION RESEARCH DIVISION National Education Association of the United States 1201 Sixteenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C. MAY 1940 15¢ LIBRARY AF THs HINIVERSITY £1 meeivee 2 GF RJoRE To bf 4 Aiea GS tebed HU 3 Introduction When compared with industrial pursuits such as construction, manufactur- ing, or mining, with their accompanying hazards, schoolwork would seem to be among the safest of occunations. Classroom instruction hardly requires the safeguards necessary in a machine shop or textile mill. However, records of injuries sustained by school.employees show that caution must be exercised, particularly in the school shops, in the science laboratories, and on ath- letic fields. Equipment in shop, cafeteria, end lsboratory is sometimes dangerous to handle. Supervision of football, rifle practice, and other extracurriculum activities exposes the instructors to danger. School buiid- ings may be out of repair. Moreover, since the upkeep and repair of the school plant involve carpentry, painting, and wiring, members of the mainte- nance staff are subject to the risks of their particular jobs. It must not be forgotten that these workmen and nurses, bus drivers, janitors, and cooks are school employees as well as are teachers and principals. Mutual benefit associations, group hospitalization plans, and retirement systems provide for some school employees but many do not have the opportunity WZ to perticipate in any such organizations. Furthermore, since the income of _) Nhe average school employee is not high enough to provide for an adequate re- NN serve in savines, large bills for medic:l services often prove to be a grave NN se CS hardship. T% is especially importent that school emplovees be protected by bo ™™~ r Bes : : A workmen's compensation provisions, since they ususlly have no right of common . l/ Wiaw action for damages. SN N i/ School districts are immune from liability, even in the face of gross negligence, unless a statute imposes such lisbility. 1 | £0668 IT. PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFIT TS Historical Comment Under common law principles, an injured workman's only opportunity to obtain damages for injuries sustained in the course of his work rests upon proof of the employer's negligence. Damage suits for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow workman were ruled out as early as 1837 when an English case set a precedent by the rul- ing that the injured employee was just as likely to know of any danger from his fellow's negligence as was the employer and, knowing the risk, he was under no obligation to take it since he could have refused the a This theory, called the fellow servant doctrine, was long followed in England and in the United States. The employer could defend himself in a suit for danages brought by an injured workman merely by proving that the accident occurred thru the val ligence of another workman. The fellow servant doctrine was held applicable even when the "fellow servant" was a superior employee or an administrative of- ficer whom the injured workman had never seen. Employers had a further defense in the plea of contributory negligence. Under this theory, any injury caused wholly or in part by the workman's own neg- ligence was not the responsibility of the employer. A third defense was found for employers in the theory that since the ordinary risks of accident were con- sidered and assumed by the workman at the time he made the wage contrect, the employer wes, therefore, not financially responsible for accidents arising out of such employment. This theory was known as the doctrine of assumption of In short, the employer's liability was a wesk support upon which injured employees could place little faith. Just at the time when loss of wages and nes eet eee ere eemnee oo l/ Priestly v. Fowler 3M. & W. 1. HANVEROITY OF i) 7 IANIR weal FT Log a : mre Le | a 2 Loh el Beet costs of medical attention depleted the finances of the workman's family, an ex- pensive law suit was necessary to obtain compensation. Workmen hesitated to risk the hazards of a law suit which was based upon legal theories not designed to protect their interests. The burden of proof was upon the injured workman; it was’ necessary that he show conclusive evidence in court that the employer had been negligent in not establishing safe working rules, in not vroviding 4 safe place to work, in not furnishing safe appliances, or in employing incompetent workmen. If these duties had been performed, the employer could not be held liable and his duty in making such provisions was held to extend only to a rea- sonable degree. Altho*negligence on the part of the employer is essential to his liability at common law, modifications in common law liability have been made by ststutory enactments. For example, the employer lisbility acts, altho they continued to recognize the necessity of fault on the part of the employer, did limit certain of the defenses previously regarded as aveilable to him and they extended somewhat the rights of employees. Some revisions, made from time to time in employer's liability acts, strengthened them but no great improvement wes made, from the point of view of the workmen, until the enactment of workmen's compensation laws. Socigl-Eeonomic Principles The philosophy underlying workmen's compensation legislztion is thet indus- triai accidents are inevitable in modern industry and that the burden of such accidents should be borne by industry rether than by the unfortunate workmen individually. The finsnciel loss, aiutributed by insurance, enters into the cost of production, Workmen's compensation laws provide benefits for workmen injured while engaged in services for the employer. Pawel se arising out of and in the course of, or resulting from the workmen's employment by his employer ere compen- sated for thru the employer's insurence, Lr avi Accidents often occur during ordinary routine thru no fault of employer or employees. Carelessness of a workman may be a contributing factor or the sole cause. Unsafe appliances or dilapidated buildings expose employees to dangerous working conditions. Workmen's compensation laws are enacted with the twofold purpose of fixing (1) for the employee an expeditious remedy regardless of fault, and (2) for the employer a liability which is limited and determinate, since usually the benefits to be paid are specified in the law. Furthermore, the common law principle, which prevents dependent survivors from bringing or continuing a law suit efter a person's wrongful death, served to relieve employers of resnonsibility in those cases where a fatal accident made compensation most necessary to the family dependent on the deceased work- man's wages. The workmen's compensation laws take care of this situation thru provisions for special death benefits. Standard Provisions for Workmen's Compensation Provisions in the various states differ in many details, but more and more amendments are bringing all states to a commonly accepted standard which includes the following general principles. The workmen's compensation law should: (1) Be compulsory and apply to all injuries, including occupational dis- eases, suffered by the worker while at his job. (2) Have an all inclusive coverage and except no groups of employees. (3) Require insursnce and offer to employers either s monopoly or a competi- tive state insurance csrrier in which self-insured workers also would be pen to insure their risks of industrial injurv. (4) Provide a "retroactive" waiting period which would eliminate cases in- volving trifling accidents without reducing the compensation of the worker suf- fering other injury. } (5) Afford full medical, hospitel, end other remedial csre to cure or re- lieve. (6) Include e minimum compensation smount to prevent the compensation of the low-paid worker from fslling below the subsistence level. in (7) Inelude a maximum weekly compensation high enough to scale dovm the compensation only of the exceptionally highly paid worker. (8) Standardize weekly benefits at a percentage of wages high enough at least to prevent the average working family becoming depencent. (9) Proviae for the devendents left by the worker sut'feving fatal injury during their entire dependency period, using the family aliowence method of vary- ing the benetits with the number of dependents left. (10) Compensate the disabled worker for the entire period of his disability with supplementary allowance for those permanently disabled and reyuiring an attendant. (11) Rehabilitate as far as possible the worker whose injurv stands in the way of his following his usual occupation. : (12) Provide for administration by a board or comnission supported by suf- ficient appropriation to make possible real enforcenent of the lew for the benefit of the workers. + (13) Empower the edministrative board to make and enforce safety orders for the prevention of industrial, accident, and occupational disease. 2/ 2/ Armstrong, Barbara N. Insuring the Essentials. New York: Macmillan Co., TI. CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS COVERING SCHOOL EMPLOYEES Publie employees had no right to financial reimbursement before the enact- ment of workmen's compensation acts. Because school districts and other public employers were not liable at common law, even:when their gross negligence could be shown, public employees had not even the meager protection which damage suits gave to workmen in private industry. However, public school employees are to some extent at least now protected by such laws in forty-two states and the District of Columbia. Variations in the benefits provided by state workmen's compensation laws may be seen from the tabular material in succeeding pages. A few general dif- ferences in coverage may be noted as follows: some laws apply only to hazard- ous occupations and include only specified industries; some laws exclude agri- cultural workers; most laws exclude domestic service; casual workers hired on a temporary basis are generally excluded; employees who are hired at work that is not in the usual course of the employer's trade or business are often excluded. Public employees are generally included, but certain types of public employees often are not, and in some states none are. Many states exempt employers when the number of employees is below a stated number and e few states exclude employees who earn more than a stated salary. Further variation in coverage among the states is based upon the elective feature of some laws. In about one-third of the states, workmen's compensation provisions are compulsory. In some states the sct is compulsory in certain types of employment, but elective in other types. In most states some part of the law is elective altho quite often the election takes the form of optional rejection. If no rejection is made, it is presumed that the employer is covered and he must abide by the provisions thereafter. In other elective states, election is mede by positive ection of the employer in accepting the provisions Pgh all of the law. When the employer accepts the act, it is presumed that the em- ployees accept it also; the employee's. signature of .acceptance is required in only one state, Kentucky. ) If the employer (and the emplovee by implication or signature) has ac- Rootee the act, damage suits are usually forbidden. In sone states an employee is permitted to bring a damage suit under certain circumstances, but these provisions are not applicable to public employees since public employers are not usually liable even when the injury suffered by a workman has been caused by the employer's mani taatee! The only exception to this general condition obtains in New York and to a limited extent in California and Washington. Table 1 lists the states in which workmen's compensation laws cover public school employees. All but Mississippi hsve a workmen's compensation law; other States not appearing in Table 1 have excluded this class of es ee The States listed in the two columns of Table 1 have been classified solely from the point of view of the protection offered to school employees, regardless of their provisions with regard to other types of employment. For example, a law may be compulsory for private industry and for public employees generally but, if it is elective so far as school districts are concerned, the state is listed in Table 1 as having an elective law. Therefore, the table must not be inter- preted as a general classification of these laws. The limitations in coverage noted parenthetically in Table 1 sre es follow: in Georgie operation of. the workmen's compensation. act- is compulsory for cities and towns but the state supreme court decided that it wes unconstitutional to a7 In this connection attention may be turned to a recent Oklshoma case where a school employee was denied compensation becsuse the school district could not come under the workmen's compensation act by implication. The state supreme _ court ruled thet "a school district is not en employer within the workmen's com- pensation act. The term school district is not specifically mentioned and can- not be included under the term ‘or any municipality.'" Ponca City Bosrd of Ed- ucation v. Bensley 11 P (2d) 466 (Okla. 1932). a Ce TABLE 1. - STATES INCLUDING PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES UNDER WORKMEN'S COLIPENSATION PROVISIONS States whose laws are compulsory for school districts a/ a States whose laws allow school districts the option of coverage a/ eo Arizona (3) California Colorado (4) Delaware (5) District of Columbia Georgia (cities and towns) (10) Hawaii Tdaho Illinois (when engaged in certain specified enterprises) Indiana Towa Maine (cities) Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New York (state only) North Carolina b/ (certain types of employees) North Dakota Ohio (3) Pennsylvania South Carolina (15) South Dakota Tennessee (state only) (5) Utah (3) Virginia (11) Washington (certain types of employees) Wisconsin (3) Wyoming (certain types of employees) Alabama (16) Connecticut (5) Florida (3) Georgia (counties) (10) Kansas (5) Kentucky (3) Maine (towns) (6) Massachusetts Missouri (11) New Hampshire (5) New Mexico (4) New York (certain types of employ- ees) (4) Rhode Island (6) Tennessee (counties and municipali- ties) Vermont (11) Washington (for employees not in- cluded under compulsory provisions) West Virginia a/ Numbers in parentheses after certain states indicate the minimum number of employees to which the provisions apply. Districts employing fewer than the number indicated are not bound by the law eltho frequently they are allowed to elect coverage. b/ See School Machinery Act of 1939 quoted on page 10, wT a attempt compulsory application of the act to county + caleceshicrets or political sub- divisions thereof, because the state constitution designates how tax money may be ee However, when counties elect to come under the act and insure with a casualty coripany, the insurance company is estopped from attempting to defeat the payment of compensation bv asserting that the county boards of education were not under the compensation act by operation of law. Therefore, unless some tax- payer enjoins the board from paying the premiums on 4a workmen’s compensation policy, the county boards of education may elect (and some have elected) to come under the provivions of the law. In Illinois certain bvnle of work are included regardless of whether the employment is public or private. Provisions of the workmen's compensation law in Maine are compulsory for cities and elective for towns; we may, therefore, infer that all employees of city schools are covered and in town schools some are end some are not. Teachers employed by the state cone under the New York State Compensation Law. Those employed by Mintel el peaes or other subdivisions of the state are not covered except in New York City where teachers ... Of shop work, manual training, industrial or trade subjects, mechanic arts, textiles, machine shop assistants, laboratory assistants, and teachers of any subject, trade, or emplovment requiring, for instruction purposes use of tools or machinery for which protective, guarding, or safety devices are re- quired by the Labor Law, may elect to receive the benefits prescribed by this chapter provided they are not eligible for daha had under the teachers’ retire- ment system in said city ... 3/ Washington and Wyoming restrict the compulsory coverage to certain types of School emplovees. In Washington, it is compulsory that those performing extra- hazardous work as carpenters, painters, manual treining instructors using power-driven machinery, and school bus drivers be protected by the employing districts and districts may elect to carry insurance coverage for other employees. 2/ DeKalb County v. Grice 181 SE 704, 3/ Group 20, Subdivision 1, Section 3, of the New New York Compensation Law. Pier Ps He In Wyoming it is compulsory for school districts to protect janitors and main- tenance employees who are considered as a group to be engaged in extrahazardous work, but other employees are not covered even thru any elective feature. The North Carolina School Machinery Act of 1939 contains the following provision: Workmen's Compensation and Sick Leave. The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be applicable to all school employees, and the State School Commission shall make such arrangements as are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as are applicable to such employees as are paid from State school funds. Liability of the State for compensation Shall be confined to school employees paid by the State from State school funds for injuries or death caused by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment in connection with the State operated eight months school term. The State shall be liable for said compensation on the basis of the average weekly wage of such employees as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether all of said compensation for the eight months school term is paid from State funds or in part supplemented by local funds. The county and city administrative units shall be liable for Workmen's Compensation for School employees whose salaries or wages are paid by such local units from local funds, and such local units shall likewise be liable for Workmen's Compensation of school employees employed in connection with teaching vocational agriculture, home economics, trades and industrial vocational subjects, supported in part by State and Federal funds, which liability shall cover the entire period of service of such employees. Such local units are authorized and empowered to provide insurance to cover such com- pensation liability and to include the cost of such insurance in their annual budgets. 4/ In the states where coverege of school employees is determined by local election of the provisions of the state workmen's compensation law, it is impossible to discover the extent to which the law protects school employees. Missouri reports that no school districts have elected to go under the act; Connecticut reports that no school districts or towns have rejected the provi- Sions of the act and, therefore, all school employees are covered. The Florida lew, nominally elective, is reported to be virtually compulsory in actual opera- tion. The situation in Montens deserves special mention. A few school districts have refused to pay the insurance premiums due for their teachers and the status 4/ 1939 School Machinery Act Enacted by the General Assembly of North Caro- lina,, Section» 22% a of these teachers has never been settled in court. The eae. of the school- boards have not Pabtactoa pate the PERCE are hecrwered s tier are, however, a few dei not idle angele even” wee the law makes it seocngainsg for all public - 6 emplovees to be covered under the state insurance fund. ceenah ures to the law these employees have the right to bring damage suits in which the employer can- not employ the usual common law defenses. However, school employees cannot sue the schoolboard or school district. Therefore, the situation in Montana is enigmatic until a test case decides the legal status of the employees of these particular school districts. Tables 2 to 6 report the benefits available to school employees as a class under the state laws providing workmen's Ataetaeyion benefits to them on either a compulsory or elective basis. LIBR MARY UNIVERSITY ne wrinnle TABLE 2. - MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL AID PROVIDED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS State : Provisions 1 a Alabama Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 90 days. Maximum $200. Arizona All necessary first aid; medical, surgical, and hos- pital services for 90 days. Commission may extend time to one year. California Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services. One change of physician permitted. Entitled to services of consulting physician. Colorado Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for four months. Maximum $500. Additionel al- lowance for dental service $100. Connecticut Reasonable services. Delaware Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital treatment for 30 days; longer if ordered by Industrial Ac- cident Board. Maximum $150. District of Columbia Such medical, surgical, and other attendance or treat- ment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches, snd apparatus for such period as the nature of the injury or the progress of recovery may require. Florida Medical services maximum $250. Medical ond surgery 8500 maximum. Georgia Rersonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 10 weeks. Maximum $500. Further trestment within discretion of Depsrtment of Industrial Rela- tions. Refusal to accept treatment bars further compensation. Heweii Medicsl, surgicel, and hospital services such sas the neture of the injury requires. Idaho Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services. Hospital benefit funds permitted in lieu thereof. Illinois Necessary medical, surgical, and hospital services; full hospital services during compensation; addi- tional medical end surgical aid as long as hos- pital treatment is required. LLL LLL LLL EAL LLL LLL LL TCL CLC CL LC CLL CTA EEE CC LC CE CC CTCL EA ett tent a eee TABLE 2. - MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL AID PROVIDED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS (Cont.) State Provisions 4 a 2 Indiana Necessary medical, surgical, and hospital service for 90 davs. Iowa Reasonable medical, surgical, osteopathic, chiropractic, nursing and hospital services and supplies. Maxi- mum $600. Kansas Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 60 days. Maximum $100. Commission may increase maximum to $500 in extreme cases. Kentucky . Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 90 days. Maximum $200 unless board fixes other period, when maximum is $400. Maine Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 30 days. Maximum $100. Additional services in discretion of commission. Massachusetts Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for two weeks or longer at discretion of board. Michigan Reasonable medical and hospital services for 90 days. Minnesota Reasonable medical and surgical treatment. Missouri Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services for 90 days. Meximum $750. Theresfter such addi- tional treatment as commission shell direct. Montana Ressonable medical and hospital services for six months. Meximum. $500 unless there is a hospital fund. Nebraska Reasoneble medical end hospital services. Nevada Rezsonable medicel, surgical, and hospital treetment and supplies, ecrutehes, apparatus, ertificirl - members, for six months; may be extended up to one yeer by cammission. Transportation furnished. New Hampshire Reasonable medical and hospital services for 30 days. New. Jersey ti Rensonable medical end hospital services. Meximum $100. In esses requiring unusunl trentment bureau may ineresse maximum. WAT hon TABLE 2, - MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL AID PROVIDED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS (Cont.) State Provisions vi Pa New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dekota Tennessee Utah Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services. Maximum $400 unless employer furnishes such facil- ities. Such medical, surgical, and hospital treatment as nature of injury requires. Only physicians author- ized by commission may treat such cases. Commis- sion may establish medical bureaus licensed for diagnosis and treatment of compensation cases. Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital and other treatment and supplies. Maximum 10 weeks from date of injury. Additional time in discretion of com- mission. Artificial members are to be furnished by employer. Such medical, surgical, and hospital treatment as the nature of the injury requires. Such medical and hospital treatment as department deems proper. Maximum $200 except in unusual cases. Reasonable medical, dental, surgical, and hospital services for three months and such further period as board may require. Maximum $200 except in hospital cases. Reasonable medical, dental, and hospital services when needed. Waximum for medical and dental services $250. Maximum for hospital $3 day. Reasonable charges to effect a cure for period of maxi- mum 10 weeks but commission may extend time in its discretion. Necessary medicel, surgical, and hospital services for 12 weeks. Maximum medical $100. Maximum hospital dh 8100 e Reasonable medical, surgical, end hospital services for 30 days, longer at option of employer. Maxi- mum medical $100; hospital $100. Reesonable medical «end hospital services. Maximum 4500, more if found necessary. Hospital benefit fund per- mitted in lieu thereof. RE NT ee EE ee ee a ee SE ee Oh, ee TAPLE 2. - MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL AID PROVIDED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS (Cont. ) State Provisions Bsr sel aah AGEN ghee addi Ms AOU CORI Mi x tke fig - Vermont Reasonable medical and surgical treatment for 14 days; maximum $50. .Reasonable hospital service for 30 days; maximum $150 additional. Virginia Necessarv medical, surgical, and hospital service for 60 days, longer if ordered by commission but not in excess of 180 days. Washington Necessary medical, surgical, and hospital service and , transportation. Employees bear one-half cost. Employer may provide own hospital and medical ser- vice and require emplovees to contribute - subject to approval of supervisor of industrial insurance. West Virginia Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital service, Maximum $800. In permanent disability cases, where disability can be materially reduced additional A 3800. Wisconsin Reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital service not to exceed period for which indemnity is payable; ‘also necessary artificial members. Christian Science treatment permitted unless employer refuses by filing written notice. Wyoming Medical and hospital services. Maximum $300. May be increased to $600 under court order. “Who TABLE 3. - BENEFITS PROVIDED DURING TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY (IN ADDITION TO MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL AID SHOWN IN TABLE 2) Percent of wages State py a Alabama 55-65 Arizona 65 California 65 Colorado 50 Connecticut 50 Delaware 50 District of 66 2/3 Columbia Florida 50-60 Georgia 50 Hawaii 60 Idaho ea Tllinois 50-65 Indiana DD Iowa 60 Kansas 60 Kentucky 65 a/ Or wages. Maximum weekly benefits of 338.46 wage 14 21 15 25 18 Minimum weekly benefits of $6.41 wage on Maximum period of time benefits — are paid 4] 500 weeks 100 months 240 weeks 520 weeks 475 weeks During disability 350 weeks 350 weeks 312 weeks 400 weeks S00 weeks 300 weeks 8 years 8 years Miscellaneous additional provisions If there is a dependent in U. S., additional $10 a month is paid Maximum total three years’ earnings Maximum total $4000 Maximum total $7500 Maximun total $5000 Maximum total $7000 Maximun total “5000 If married additional benefits; if there are dependent minor children, more for children Maximum total $5500 Meximum total #5000 Maximum total 86000 rE Na ae TAPLE 3. - RENEFITS PROVIDED DURING TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY (IN ADDITION TO LIEDICAL, SURGICAL State Maine Massachusetts. Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dekote Ohio Pennsylvanie Rhode Island South Crrolina a/ Or weges. b/ If wages are less than employed eat least 15 hours a Percent of wages 2 66 2/3 66 2/3 66 2/3 66 2/3 66 2/3 50-66 2/3 66 2/3 60 , AND HOSPITAL ATD SHOWN IN TABLE 2) Miscellaneous additional provisions eee pe Sener 6 (Neer | ernment ee mn ere mere (Cont. ) Maximum Minimum Maximum weekly weekly period benefits benefits of time benefits are peid EAR OTR 6 AO 5 $18 $6 500 weeks b/ 18 9 500 weeks 18 500 weeks “ef 20 8 300 weeks 20 6 400 weeks rae 8 300 weeks LS 6 300 weeks 72 30 100 months month) (2 month) Ay 7 300 weeks a/ 20 10 300 weeks af 18: 10 550 weeks a/ Bo 8 lait 18° 7 ‘1 400 weeks 20 Teer otenane af 18.75 8 6 years 18 ; abe 500 weeks £0 7 1000 weeks no 5 500 weeks 39, wages ere paid es benefit week. Meximum total $6000 Maximum total 34500 Meximun totel 89000 If there is a dependent in Ui+8., additional G10 a month is paid. Maximum to ten37 200, Meximum total $5000 Maximum total °56000 Moxinun-total-315,000 Maximun total $3750 Meximum total 310,000 Maximum total $6000 with minimum of $7 if i ae TABLE 3. - BENEFITS PROVIDED DURING TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY (IN ADDITION TO MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL ATD SHOWN IN TABLE 2) (Cont. ) Percent Maximum Minimum Maximum Miscellaneous additional of wages weekly weekly period provisions State benefits benefits of time benefits are paid 1 : 2 3 eng eben Cea ie 6 a/ South Dakota 55 815 37.50 6 years sia a/ Tennessee 50 16 5 300 weeks bras a/ Utah 60 16 7 6 years More for dependent chil- dren. Maximum total G5000 or $6250 if there are dependent children. a/ Vermont 50 15 vin 260 weeks Maximum total 44000 Virginia 55 16 6 500 weeks Maximum total 86000 Washington $35 a month if single; $40 if spouse is invalid; if worker is mar- ried woman whose husband is not invalid $20. $12.50 for one child; $7.50 for next youngest; $5 for each other child under 16; $25 month for attendant if needed. Schedule may be increased for six months in certain cases of temporary disability. West Virginia 66 2/3 16 8 52 weeks May be paid 78 weeks in certain cases Wisconsin 70 of (330 OT ek) SOO ue oe Maximum total four years' wage wage earnings Wyoming $50 a month if single; 360 if married; $7.50 for each child under 18; maximum $90 a month. If dependent children are nonresident aliens only one-third of the allowance is paid for children. a/ Or wages. Miscellaneous BG | additional provisions TABLE 4. = PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS Pereent ° Maximum Minimun Maximum of wages weekly weekly period State benefits benefits of time ' benefits are paid wt ipa 3 4 5 Alabana Arizone California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Tilinois Indiana Towa Kansas Kentucky a/ Or wages. 65 50 66 2/3 50-60 50 60 95-65 o18) 60 60 eear of $38.46 wage 20 12 15-20 - of $30 of $6.41 wage 7.50- Le of $16 wage a/ 6 6 400 weeks Life 240 weeks Life 520 weeks 475 weeks During disability 3450 weeks 350 weeks 412 weeks 400 weeks 8 vears 500 weeks 400 weeks 6. Thereafter maximum $5 for 150 weeks areas Thereafter 40 life Maximum total Maximum total Meximum total Maximum total Maximum total Thereafter $6 in certain percent for $4000 $7500 35000 372000 $5000 week. If married, additional bene- fits are paid, and more if there are dependent children. Thereafter 8 percent of death benefits for life; minimum $10 a Maximum total Maximum total month $5000 &6000 TABLE 4, - PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (Cont.) Percent Maximum Minimum Maximum Miscellaneous additional of wages weekly weekly period provisions State benefits benefits of time benefits are paid i 2 3 4 5 6 Maine 66 2/3 $18 36 500 weeks Maximum total $6000 b/ Massachusetts 66 2/3 18 9 500 weeks Maximum total $4500 Michigan 66 2/3 18 ? 500 weeks Maximum totel $9000 a/ Minnesota 66 2/3 20 8 whet Maximum total $10,000 Missouri 66 2/3 20 6 300 weeks Thereafter 25 percent for life Montana 50-66 2/3 15 8 500 weeks Additional benefits if dependents a/ Nebraska 66 2/3 25 6 300 weeks Thereafter 45 percent, maximum 310, minimum 34.50 or wages Neveda 60 60 30 Life 300 month additional for (a month) (a month) services of constant attendant if needed New Hampshire 50 1” ? 300 weeks cee New Jersey 66 2/3 20 io! 400 weeks Period may be extended New Mexico 60 18 io 550 weeks see New York 66 2/3 25 if ee Sas North demo dirin 66 (average) 18 7 400 weeks Maximum total $6000 North Dekota 66 2/3 20 of During Maximum total $15,000 disebility , Ohio 66 2/3 46475 a Life vee Pennsylvania 65 18 12 500 weeks Therenfter $30 a month during disability a/ Or wages. b/ If wages are less then 39, wages ere pnid as benefit with minimum of 47 if employed et least 15 hours a week. LL LL LLL LT CTL CLL CCE OL TT 8 en CCR ne eer NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1201 SIXTEENTH STREET. N. W.. WASHINGTON, D. C. May 23, 1940 To Members of the State School Legislative Reference Service We are pleased to send you herewith a copy of the mimeographed bulletin "\Jorkmen's Compensation Provi- -sions for Public School Employees." This publication is sent to you as a part of the program of the State School Legislative Reference Service. We believe that the facts reviewed will be helpful to those interested in the in- provement of workmen's compensation legislation, particu- larly as related to school systems. Cordially yours, Mel ks A J) aes Frank W. Hubbard William G. Carr Associate Director Director, Research Division This material is sent to you as a part of the State School Legislative Reference Service, inaugurated by the Legislative Commission, National Education Association Sidney B. Hall, Chairman ey ee Se ; ; “earate aan ant AO AG I oTenibaaw 3 5 ‘: 3 ki hy eit vy a vs ate | ’ ar way nite aw ad +4 } ; Bas Ba hor hy ‘ at" Aes 1 ¥ Bind ‘ SE PAIL event: pa ObeL Ce val ~ ea * ’ we pamnngniente we ae ; oh F hy sear ts | ae a vine gi) fA Ae il , eA NEE AER 4 Ad seb elt pan tle PAney (Map ee iy 5 ae bs aah ete"? ' Tee one } x . t bien t toostot ‘eter ‘att To ss ediiak at ety | Hl vaso team bien sel kt a PP cae ‘ A ht wate a + is oe ts yoo a atiweted voy baer of beasely ove OW | “trey sith sour Aol! abe Lyd bona , op aotdesiidua aid? “,eeevolqn@ Loose ofigia | soorist atatt of? Fo siaryow9 odd to eq » 28 titont edt tad¢ avetfed ac ,ootvaeet apagie Ten wnt edt al hove nosed es Vogl oF Pai ocaa od If ’ | inh Ae Bey ee i te. “58 orb, v4 = FIRS PRR SILAS METER Me eT A ae eae 7 ~emwoy Yliakbroo | ol ae ockadead saa, his »: ” eee (2 oy ia , ie Wes Pee Oa aE a aD ai heat! uF noelvitt dotecue® ,coteetl | geotoor a ade fooren ey ’ , ; " | it i . j ( meaye esis +0 rg 9 Rie Od ‘ot ¢nen af feirotam stat | botesunesal AOhNIIe pOMeTRIOR | avidaiataat Looked olenionod emitalaivel ed? yt ih foldpioveta hotiangea tanotien” raat “nemiat® Lt WE esos) | a halo e ) (i Ai’ ee * DRY a £ whieh 4p ry) cy 4 Ad de de Beatie’ sabi men osnalihe Braker Bento oprocatien See ea jes tall ; Dhaa i 7 7 ala ms a: Wee . cae i — Fo pike TABLE 4. - PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (Cont. ) 0 Percent Maximum Minimum Maximum Miscellaneous additional of wages weekly weekly period provisions. State benefits benefits of time : ra benefits: ‘are paid i dina ait mehine hie Sueno Mio” wine Gar, saad 1. fiemied seeks 6 Rhode Island 50 320 37 1000 weeks Maximum total $10,000 South Carolina 60 25 5 500 weeks Maximum total $6000 South Dakota 55 15 2vH0 During Total not to exceed disability death benefits Pe F P pret oy h? hte Tennessee 50 16 Sr - 400 weeks Thereafter maximum $5 week for 150 weeks. Maximum total $5000. Utah 60 16 L § oS years More for children. After pe 5 years 45 percent for life. BG str : Vernont 50 15 ? 260 weeks Maximum total $4000 Virginia 66 16 6 500 weeks Maximum total $6000 Washington $35 a month if single; $40 if spouse is invalid; if worker is mar- $12.50 for one child; $25 a ried woman whose husband is not invalid $20. $7.50 for next youngest; %5 for each other child under 16. month for attendant if needed. Life 2 widow who had two children who reached majority between 1925 end 1929. Surety wants reduction in benefits because there are now no dependents. Boerd ruled status *s supporter of dependents should rest on time of injury. Board's deci- Sion upheld in District Court; esse is pending in Superior Court. i IDAHO ~- (cont. ) ~ eh. 4, Emil Hanson, Claimant v. Independent School District 1ll-J, Elmore and Owvhee Counties, Employer and State Insurance Fund, Surety. September 28, 1934. Reported in the Ninth Report of the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho, p. 35. Claimant was injured in 1929. He claimed appendicitis had resulted from the,injury. Surety denied responsibility; In- dustrial Accident Board denicd claim; District Court reversed Board's decision. Surety anpealed to Supreme Court. Supreme Court remanded case to Industrial Accident Board with snecific instructions. Claim was paid in pert, according with in- structions and the case was ended in 1931. In July 1934 claimant asked that case be reopened for further benefits as he had not been able to go to work. Board denied claim. An appeal to District Court is pending. Board claims there must be shown a change in conditions since the agreement before an award of modification of benefits may be made. So. In the matter of the death of Russell Garst: ‘Celia D. Garst and State of Idaho on the relation of Harry C. Parsons, State Auditor, v. Independent School District No. 6, Caribou:.County, Idaho, Employer, and State Insurance Fund, Surety. December 7, 1954. Reported in the Tenth Report of the Industrial Accident Board of the Stete of Idaho, p. 36. Athletic coach's duty was to accompany the team to and from all games. On such a trip Garst was fatally injured in an automobile accident. Garst was driving the car at high speed and school district claimed he drove negligently. Ruling was that contributory negligence of deceased does not deprive dependents of right to compensation. Such an accident is compensable, 6% Vance Butt, Claimant v. State School and Colony, Employer and State Insurance Fund, Surety. February 28, 1935. Reported in the Tenth Report of the Industrial Accident Board, State of Idaho, p. 21. bite A hernia case which was denied compensation because a hernia must be reported to employer within 30 days. fey Oieaks Lenon, Claimant v. Independent School District No. 8 of Bingham County, Employer and State Insurance:-Fund, Surety. May 16, 1935. Reported in the Tenth Report of the Industrial Accident Board of the State of: Idaho, p. 44. Claimant, injured while unhitching team from school bus, was denied his claim es he was an independent contractor who had won on bids put out for pupil transportation. ILLINOIS - 10. na Martin Ricks, Claimant v. Independent School District No. l, Pocatello, Idaho, Employer and State Insurance Fund, Surety. May 18, 1935. Reported in the Tenth Report of the Intustrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho, p. 57. Janitor of schoolboard sustained compensable injuries in July 1933. Compensation was paid for total temporary dis- ability. In February 1935 claimant became ill and consulted several physicians who decided the right kidney was infected. The kidney wes removed. Claim that the infection was a result of the 1933 injuries was denied. England v. Fairview School District No. 16 of Power County, et al. (77 P 2d 655) Supreme Court of Idaho, March 12, 1938. A teacher who had secured permission of schoolboard to purchase graduation supplies found no satisfactory supplies available in locality and solicited a ride to a city 195 miles distance for the sole purpose of purchasing supplies there. She was injured on the trip when the auto overturned. Such injury was compensable as arising out of and in course of employment regardless of distance or fact that trip was not an expense to the district, or the fact that the men with the teacher were intoxicated. Calvert v. Illinois Power and Light Corporation (9 NE 2d 443) Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Division, First District, January 27, 1937. Rehearing June 30, 1937. Student employed as milk delivery truck driver by Univer- sity of Illinois was injured when truck collided with sagging trolley wire while he was on another driver's route which he had taken over with custom and with knowledge of officials in charge. It was held he was engaged in service which as a matter of law brought the University within compensation act at time of injury. Hence, student could not recover from electric light company for injuries as against contention that student was carrving on en independent service for driver whose route he had taken over. University of Illinois is an institution of learning and not an enterprise engaged in farming solely (which would be exempt). Chicago Board of Education v. Illinois Industrial Commission (15 NE 2a 288) Supreme Court of Illinois, April 15, 1938. Talbot, a glazier emploved by the Board of Educetion, fell from a stepladder on December 18, 1934. Injuries were sus- tained but no claim for compensation was entered. A lump sum séttlement on basis of total temporary disability was made between Board of Education and Telbot and was approved (beceuse it had eccrued) by Industrial Commission on July dey 1935. Talbot agreed to waive all provisions of the Workmen's ILLINOIS - (cont. ) INDIANA - 12. Lise Lt. rah aa ‘Campensation Act. On March 12, 1936, Talbot filed a petition for review claiming that the injury recurred and increased after the settlement, Commission ordered Board of Education to pay compensation on basis of total permanent disability. Superior Court confirmed the order; also affirmed by Supreme Court, April 15, 1938. No one may waive provision of act except after approval of Industrial Board. Reissner v. Board of School Commissioners of City of Indianapolis (4 NE 2d 581) Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc, November 19, 1936. Secretary of Board of School Commissioners of city, while holding a sharpened lead pencil in his hand attempted to close a drawer in his desk. The lead pencil punctured the palm of his right hand creating a wound as the result of which septicemia developed and death therefrom followed. The secre- tary's legal status was questioned. Is a secretary of school commissioners an employee or a public officer? His duties are fixed by a statute which does not invest any sove¥eign powers upon him and the most distinguishing characteristic between a public office and an employment is that the duties of the officer must involve en exercise of some portion of the sovereign power. As an eriployee the death was compensable. Williams v. School City of Winchester (10 NE 2d 315) Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc, October 13, 1937. School superintendent was killed in an auto collison which occurred while the superintendent was on a trip for the purpose of attending a meeting devoted to a discussion of school prob- lems end to investigate the qualifications of an applicant for & teaching position. The trip had been entered upon with knowledge of and under instructions from the board of school trustees. Therefore, the death was held to be coripensable eas as having occurred in the course of employment even tho the Superintendent was meking the trip at own expense. M. P. Nielson, Claimant v. Independent School District of Atlantic, Employer, Fidelity and Casualty Co., Insurance Carrier, Defendant, October 4, 1933. Reported in the Eleventh Biennisl Report of the Workments Compensation Service - Iowe, tOr pericd ending June GO, 1934, 5, 50. Janitor, sent to courthouse on errand by school principal, lifted SO pounds of paper to cerry back to school. In going out of courthouse door his knee wes injured. Altho what hap- pened at the courthouse door is uncertein due to conflicting evidence, whetever happened ceused disebility "but for which Nielson would have continued in usual earning.” Claim there- fore wes grented. es ew IOWA - 15. Hoover v. Independent School District of Shenandoah, Iowa (cont. ) Pond v. same; Ford v. same; Ruth v. same (264 NW 611) ; Supreme Court of Iowa, January 21, 1936. Painters engaged by Civil Works Administration which paid them and instructed them when and where to work to redecorate school building were held to be employees of the Civil Works Administration, not of the school district. MARYLAND - 16. Mayor and Civil Council of Baltimore Te Sehwind (199 A 853) Court of Appeals of Maryland, June 14, 1938. School janitress ruptured a blood vessel in attempting to lift and move a long ladder; paralysis develoned. It was necessary for janitress to move ladder in the course of her employment in order to remove broken glass from transom. Maryland Workmen's Compensation Act subjects a municipal- ity to liability whenever it becomes engaged in extra- hazardous work in which workmen are employed. It was con- ceded that the janitress was a workman but it was denied that janitress work is extrahazardous. MINNESOTA - . 17. Lee -v. Villard School District No. 5 et al. (257 Nw 90) Supreme Court of Minnesota, November 2, 1934. A bus driver was killed on his way to school to pick up children to take them home. It was held that the accident occurred in line of duty; claim was awarded. 18. Schmahl State Treasurer v. School District No. 12 of Pine County (274 IT] 168) Supreme Court of Minnesota, June 18, 1937. This suit was concerned with a 1927 case involving death of an employee without dependents. According to the com- pensation lew $200 should have been paid to the special compensation fund, but no suit for it was brought within the six yeer limitation and no recovery was therefore allowed. N'VADA - 19. Nevada Industrial Commission v. Leonard et al. (68 P 2d 576) Supreme Court of Neveda, May 28, 1937. A teacher on her way to school broke her hip in a fall caused by her foot slipping or turning on a loose rock in the unpeved roed lerding to the school. ‘The injury heppened ten feet from the school gate altho there was some question as to whether she was or wes not on school property since the fence did not include all the school property. It was decided she wes not on school grounds but nevertheless was injured in the course of her employment since teachers are required by stetute to observe children on school grounds Or on their wey to school. Leonard claims to have been watching boys inside fence; therefore injury arose out of duties of employment. NORTH 20. CAROLINA - OHIO -~ el. Ro« PENNSYLVANIA - 23. 5) LD! lee Perdue et al. v. State Board of Equalization (172 SE 396) Supreme Court of North Carolina, January 24, 1934. Perdue was coach of football team. During a game he left side lines to make a protest to referee against the conduct of the head linesman. After he had made his protest and be- fore he had left the field the head linesman, angered by his protest to referee, struck Perdue on or about the head. He fell unconscious and died on way to hospital in ambulance. His death was compensable. He was held to have been an eme - ployee of the school district and not of the state nor of the State Board of Equalization altho his salary as coach was paid by funds allowed to district by State Board of Equaliza- tion. Bower v. Industrial Commission (22 NE 2d 840) _ Court of Appeals of Ohio, Lucas County, April 3, 1939. A school teacher employed in Fremont, Ohio, was injured in an automobile collision in Toledo while attending a teachers’ meeting in accordance with directions of the superintendent. No transportation was provided for the teachers attending the institute nor any accommodations for the night which inter- vened during the institute. Bower arranged to spend the night with friends and was injured while riding to the home of these friends in another friend's car. At the moment of injury, Bower was performing duties inci- dental to her employment and a necsssary part of her entire trip to Toledo to attend the institute as she had been di- rected to do by her employer. The injury arising as it did out of her employment was compensable. Bake v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (22 NE 2d 130) Supreme Court of Ohio, July 12, 1939. A kitchen employee of Miami University died. He had had heart trouble snd various other chronic disabilities and it was claimed that when lifting a crate of heed lettuce in the University kitchen this overexertion caused + hernie which contributed to and hastened his death. The claim wes denied for insufficient proof. Lucy M. Cowen v. School District of Philadelphia Februery 11, 1935. Reported in Pennsylvanis Workmen's Com- pensation Borsrd Decisions, Vol. 18, p. 52. A teacher was injured by « fall in the street as she was going to school. She wes cerrying exeminetion papers and lesson plans but there wes no evidence that this caused her to fall. Therefore the injury wes not in line of employment and not compensable. 4 2H = PENNSYLVANTA - 24. (cont. ) UTAH - B56 26. Bie Laura L. Trout v. Green Township School District, June 3, 1936. Reported in Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Board Decisions, Vol. 19, p. 206. A fatal accident occurred to Trout who was engaged to make window covers at a sawmill for use on a schoolhouse. Accident occurred on his way to sawmill. He was not com- pensable. rive S Vera Schanbacher v. School District of Philadelphia, November 25, 1936. Reported in Pennsylvania Workmen's Com- pensation Board Decisions, Vol. 19, p. 512. Claimant entered into an egreement concerning compensa- tion for an injury under the mistaken impression that the injury was confined to the leg. It developed later that claimant suffered other and additional disabilities as a result of the accident. The original benefits were modified as having been awarded under a mutual mistake of fact. Barwin v. Independent School District of Sioux Falls, et al. (248 NW 257) Supreme Court of South Dakota, May 1, 1933. A 73 year old janitor was washing windows on a ladder when a schoolboy accidentallv ran into the ladder causing janitor to fall. He was treated for injuries (broken bones) but died of heart failure within three weeks of accident. Decedent's wife wrote an informal letter to Industrial Com- mission which the court holds is sufficient notice even if not in precise form. Altho there was conflict of medical evidence as to probable relationship between the fall and cause of death, the court will not disturb the decision of the Industrial Commission in absence of abuse of discretion; that is, if any reasonable creditable, end substantial evi- dence supports findings. However, the widow died before any payments of benefits were made and the court ruled that widow's administrator was entitled to payments due from date of injury of janitor to death of his widow. Board of Education of Salt Lake City v. Industrial Commis- sion of Utah, et al, (27 Pac 2d 805) Supreme Court of Utah, December 22, 1933. Teacher, on stepladder trimming a Christmas tree, lost balance and in attempting to regain position twisted and wrenched spinal colurn causing subsequent paralysis. Conflict in medical opinion at hearing caused appeal. Court will not disturb finding of Commission when evidence is such as to justify a decision in either way. UTAH - (cont, ) VIRGINIA - WISCONSIN ~ 29. 30. A ha “LE ~ rh BR bed G SAMO Or 8h tT RR PANTVLFE SG % } ih Lays Nt UNIVERSITY OF ILLINGIO UERPVE RF <2 me L - 4] - Morgan v. Industrial Comnission of Utah, et al. (66 P 2d 144) Supreme Court of Utah, April 2, 1937. Principal on a Sunday evening, went to school building for purpose of making out a report. He found he had left his office keys at home and went back for keys but was delaved by visitors. He started back to school at 10 p.m. and was hit by an auto while he was walking along the road. The court, reversing the decision of the industrial Commission, held that the accident arose out of employment. A. Huffman, Claimant v. Roanoke City School Board, Employer, Aetna Life Insurance Co., Insurer. Reported in Opinions In- dustrial Commission of Virginia, Vol. 16, p. 424 and Vol. 17, p. 16. Appeal denied by Supreme Court of Appeals, January 18, 1935. Janitor, 73 vears old, after a siege of influenza (which may or may not have a bearing on the ease) tried to hang curtains when stending on 4 seven foot ladder. He got dizzy and fell. Injury occurred in neture end location of the work. Harriet Anderson Shiek, Claimant v. Schoolboard of Alexandria, Employer, Marvlend Casualty Company, Insurer, December 27, 1937. Reported in Opinions Industrial Commission of Virginia, Vou, 19, i937, p. 399; Tercher en route to school csrrying register, on which she herd completed work ct home over weekend, slipped in mud end wrenched snkle in falling so as to save register from felling in mud. This injury was not compenscble. The court said: "Where eccidents occur and compensation is ewerded for in- juries which are received while en route from home to work it is on the besis thet the trip is made st 2a different time than usual or over s route not originally used, such es meking a call at one point before arriving st work, or to obtein the mail or for some other mission.” Johanna Clark v. Jount School District No. 6, Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin, June 15, 1934. Reported in the Seventeenth Report of the Wisconsin Industriel Commission, p. 42. School nurse provided with euto for use in her employment kept auto at home of sister with whom she lived. Nurse slipped and fell on ice when going from houss to gnrage on way to get car to attend to employment. It was held the injury did not occur in course of employnent. erie SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Barbara N. Insuring the Essentials. New York: Macmillan Co., 1932. Rou? a Association of Casualty and Surety Executives. Digest of Workmen's Compensation Laws in the United States and Territories. New York: the Association, 1939. (Loose-leaf ) "Constitutionality of Provisions of Workmen's Compensation Laws Applicable to Public Officers or Employees." American Lawyers Reports 53: 1290. Dawson, Marshall. "Coverage Limitations of Workmen's Compensation Laws." Monthly Labor Review 48: 1267-81; June 1939. National Education Association, Research Division. Compensation for Injured School Employees. Studies in State Educational Administration No. 12. Washing- ton, D. C.: the Association, 1933. 55 p. Mimeo. (An extensive bibliography appears in this report.) U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Workmen's Compensation in the United States, as of January 1, 1940." Monthly Labor Review 50: 574-99; March 1940. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA \