Opinion
Decided January 2, 1934.
PETITION, for compensation under the workmen's compensation act, P. L., c. 178.
The case was sent to a master who found the facts and ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Subject to exception, the court (Burque, J.) ordered judgment on the report and transferred the case.
The plaintiff is a shoe-worker whose work necessitates the handling of chemicals which frequently cause eczema. This is more likely to result when white shoes are in process. He had an attack of eczema, so caused, at an earlier time, and was out of work a month in consequence. After his recovery he returned to work and had no trouble until there again came occasion to work on white shoes. He objected to working on those shoes because of the danger of again contracting the disease; but, upon being told in substance, that if he would not do that work he would be discharged, he undertook it and again became afflicted with the disease. The proceeding was brought to recover for the later disability.
Thorp Branch (Mr. Branch orally), for the plaintiff.
Wyman, Starr, Booth Wadleigh (Mr. Ralph E. Langdell orally), for the defendant.
The case is governed by Thomson v. Company, ante, 436, decided this day.
In so far as the facts differ from those in the earlier case, they are not more favorable to the plaintiff.
Exception overruled.
BRANCH, J., did not sit: WOODBURY, J., concurred in the result: the others concurred.
I concur in the result upon the ground that the injury was foreseen, anticipated and not accidental. In so far as the doctrine upon which this case is disposed of is concerned I dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in Thomson v. Company.