MEMORANDUM

CONCERNING

A Proposed Scale of Compensation Bene-
fits to be Paid to Workmen Injured
Through Industrial Accident

NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION

BY THE

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

Printed at the State Printing Office, FRIEND WM. RICHARDSON, Superintendent.

Iva.

 

 

 

 

HM at.
Wit/23¢.
M IL
”“345?“

A PROPOSED SCALE OF COMPENSATION.

This Board has been making a study of the general subject of schedules of Compensation.
In the belief that the methods suggested and results obtained may have some general
interest, and in the hope of receiving helpful criticism thereon, these notes are being sent
out for consideration and comment. '

It is desirable in this formative period, when so many states have the subject of Work—
men’s Compensation under consideration, that there shall be as large a degree of cooperation
and interchange of ideas as possible, first, in order to reach as nearly as may be a perfect
institution and, second, in the hope of arriving at a large degree of uniformity as a basis
for fair competition between the states of the Union.

We hope, for One thing, that these notes may serve to point the way to a more definite
understanding of the nature of the statistical information necessary to handle this subject
adequately. Most of the statistical data required can be had with regard to European
experience, and in the absence of American experience, this must of necessity be used, but
it is desirable that American experience may be substituted as soon as possible. We shall
call attgntion in the sequel to what we believe to be the important data that should be
acquire .

In fixing a schedule of compensation for accidents to workmen the most diflicult problem
is to fix the compensation for permanent disability and death. The allowance for medical
aid and for temporary disability is very closely determined by the obvious necessities of
the case, but in case of death and permanent disability the consequences are more far-
reaching and intricate and there may be considerable divergence of opinion as to the amount
of compensation and the method by which it is to be given.

We should be glad to learn of any statistical results or estimates regarding the cost of
medical aid. We believe the most difficult problem to settle in this connection is the question
whether there shall be an upper limit to the amount that the employer shall be made
liable to pay for medical aid. There will be a few cases in which the best good of the
employee requires an expensive operation and a long hoSpital confinement; in many such
cases this expense will be more than made up by the saving in the cost of what otherwise
would have resulted in death or total,.permanent, disability.

One such case came under the observation of this Board in which the crushing of one leg
below the knee necessitated either the amputation of the injured member or the trans-
ference of sound bone from the uninjured leg to the injured one and its grafting into the
broken fragments, a process that required several months of surgical attention and hospital
treatment. Fortunately, the latter course was pursued, and both legs were made nearly as
good as new, but the surgical and hospital expense totalled $1,000, whereupon the balance
sheet stood as follows, under the California law—

 

Amputation of leg, maximum liability of employer, under present law __________________ $100 00
Temporary total disability, 5 weeks at $16.90 per week, the weekly wages being $26 ______ 84 50
Permanent partial disability at 60 per cent of'total, 391 weeks at $10.15 ________________ 3,965 50

‘ Total cost to employer under limited medical attendance _____________________________ $4.150 00

Per contra.

Medical, surgical and hospital expense _______________________________________________ $1,000 00
Temporary total disability, 26 weeks at $16.90-__ -- 439 40
Permanent partial disability,’ 10 per cent for 754 weeks ($1.69) ------------------------- 1,274 25
Total cost to employer under full medical attendance - ------ $2,713 65

 

That is, in this case, full medical attendance meant a saving of about $1,400.

In the case of temporary disability the desirable procedure is obvious—to pay the
injured man a percentage of his wages during the time of recovery. The only question
that will arise will be with regard to the length of the waiting period and with regard
to what this percentage should be. Practically, the percentage to be paid will be determined
in each caSe by the degree of liberality which the statefeels that its industries can afford.

We may, therefore, dismiss these questions and take up the really difficult questions of
determining the proper awards in cases resulting in death or permanent disability.

It will be granted that, whatever plan is adopted, there should be a proper relationship,
on the one hand between the death benefit and the award for permanent disability, and, on
the other hand, among the awards for various degrees of permanent disability. It is easy to
show that under the present California law, for example, as well as under many others,
no proper relationships of this kind exist. The California law allows a payment of 65 per
cent of the loss of wages extending over a period not to exceed 15 years and not to exceed

271553

_4_

3 years’ full wages. .In the case of permanent disability the result of this schedule is that

'a man who has received a 31 per cent injury (that is, has lost 31 per cent of his earning
power) receives as much compensation as a man who is totally disabled. That is, in all
cases of permanent disability that are over 30 per cent of total the same amount is paid,
the only difference being that the smaller the degree of disability the longer the interval
over which the payment is stretched. -

Furthermore, there is no proper relationship in the California law between the death
benefit and the allowance for total permanent disability. It is not difficult to show what
this should be. A man who is totally and permanently disabled is (lead to his family so
far as his earning power goes. This is not all, however, for there will be an expense to
his family above what there would have been in the case of his death, namely, the cost of
his keep. To be consistent, therefore, the payment in the case of total, permanent disability
should be the equivalent of the death benefit plus a pension of such a part (say one third)
of his wages as will be sufficient to pay for his maintenance during the remainder of his life.

To make this comparison in detail it will be necessary to reduce these different benefits
to the same form and for this purpose we may conveniently takethe lump sum equivalent
of the weekly payment benefits provided under compensation. Four per cent rate of interest
was assumed, and a mortality such as that given in the American Experience table. It was
assumed that a man of age 39 could be taken as typical of the whole working population;
that is, that the average cost for compensation to all workmen as a whole would be the
same as the cost for a man of 39. This was based upon an actuarial computation of the cost
of compensation among a population between the ages of 15% and 59%; these limits were
taken after a study of the census figures for California.

Under the present. California law the death benefit is full wages for three years. 'The
equivalent of this, on the basis above assumed, is a lump sum equal to 147.19 weeks’ wages.
In the case of total, permanent disability the payment is 65 per cent of wages until 3 years’
full wages have been paid, that is for 240 weeks. This is equivalent to a lump sum of
139.59 weeks’ wages. Therefore, under the California law, the payment in the case of
total, permanent disability, instead of being larger than the death benefit, is smaller in
actual value.

In order to ascertain what the payment for total disability properly should be, we must
add to the lump sum death benefit the lump sum equivalent of, say, one third wages for life.
This will be, for a man of age 39, taking account of interest and mortality, 280.09 weeks’
wages; added to the death benefit this gives 427.28 weeks’ wages as the lump sum equivalent
for total, permanent disability, or nearly three times the death benefit. This, it happens, is
very nearly equivalent to a life-pension of half wages (a life-pension of half wages is
equivalent to a lump sum of 420.13 weeks’ wages) and for convenience we may refer to it
in this way.

Having established the proper relation between the death benefit and the allowance for
total disability, we may turn to the question of the relation between the allowances for
various degrees of partial, permanent disability.

On a basis of abstract right to the individual it is perhaps evident what these payments
should be, for if the man who has lost all of his earning power is to receive half of what
he has lost for life, then the man who has lost a part of his earning power should receive
half of what he has lost for life. We may, however, at this point stop to inquire whether
workmen’s compensation is based on a theory of abstract justice to the worker or whether
is is not, in some measure, rather a social expedient for averting poverty. In the latter event
we shall be under no compulsion to treat all on exactly the same basis, but our guiding
principle will be to apportion the compensation in such a way that it will do the most good.
In this case we must give proportionally more to those whose need is greater.*

In seeking for a better form of schedule the proponent of this schedule has adopted

the general principles contained in the Report of the Sutherland Congressional Committee, .

from which we quote in substance as follows:

“(a) The compensation should not be so low as to be inadequate to the support of the
injured employee and his family during the period of disability, or the support of his
dependents for a reasonable period after his death.

 

*That organized labor is of a similar opinion is evidenced by the fact that a conference of delegates of
the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor, inva published report, gave expression to the following views:
“There was a general consensus of opinion among the labor delegates at the conference that they would
prefer to be assured of a pension for life in case they were totally incapacitated for life, even if it were
necessary to suffer a reduction in the compensation for minor injuries. It is ”suggested that within the
limits spoken of above (the maximum limit of cost to the employer fixed by the rate of insurance) work-
ingmen ought to be free to agree among themselves that they will waive their claim for compensation if a
finger is cut off so that they may get a greater compensation in case an arm is amputated. 'What can be
saved in minor accidents can be used, in part, to increase the compensation for those completely crippled
for life.”

 

 

_..5__

(b) The compensation should not be so high as to operate as an inducement to the
employee to remain idle or to unnecessarily prolong the period of idleness by malingering.

(c) Wherever the injury results in disability, permanent in duration and total in char—
acter, the payment of one half wages is to continue as long as he lives. No less period
could be justified. Such an employee .is forever unable to help himself. To give him
compensation for a limited period of time would be to deprive him of it when, perhaps, he
most needed it, and in the end to turn him over to public charity.

(d) In the case of an employee whose injury results in disability, permanent in duration
but partial in character, the payment of one half wages is to continue for a limited period
of time proportioned to the extent and severity of the injury. These periods are fixed upon
the theory that the time stated will be adequate to enable the injured employee to readjust
himself to his maimed condition. It is better to pay the injured employee a comparatively
large compensation during this necessary period of readjustment than to pay him a com-
paratively small compensation for a longer or for an indefinite period. In dealing with this
class of injuries the law should be so framed as to say to the injured man: ‘True, you have
lost an arm, and for a considerable period of time it will be difficult for you to engage in
the labor to which you have been accustomed, or to acquire the ability to do other work;
but one-armed men are not necessarily drones, and it is your duty again to become a self~
supporting member of society as soon as you can do so. In the meantime you are to be
taken care of.’ ”

In the matter of permanent disability it is proposed to make the following distinction:
A man who has received an injury causing 60 per cent disability or less is to be considered
as capable of rehabilitation. That is, it will be possible for him so to adapt himself to his
maimed condition, by learning a new occupation or by learning a new way to perform his
old work, that he can recover a sufficient part of his earning power to again make him self-
sustaining. The compensation allowed him can be most advantageously applied to this end
by giving him a degree of freedom for a limited period in which to put himself into a
condition to meet his changed condition. It is proposed, therefore, for this class of perma-
nent injuries to allow the following compensation:

For a 10 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 40 weeks.
For a 20 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 80 weeks.
For a 30 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 120 weeks.
For a 40 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 160 weeks.
For a 50 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 200 weeks.
For a 60 per cent disability a pension of 65 per cent of wages for 240 weeks.

The provision should probably be added that the compensation and the wages shall not
exceed the wages received at the time of the injury, except in the case of minors receiving
less wages than $10 per week. '

Injuries that produce a disability rated at 70 percent or over are to be treated differently.
Here it will be assumed that the worker will be to a greater or less extent a permanent
burden upon society and the compensation will be paid in the form of a life annuity. The
schedule under consideration proposes to give the Worker who is totally disabled the equiva-
lent of 50 per cent of his wages for life. Instead, however, of giving the worker who is 90
per cent disabled half of his loss of wages for life (which would be consistent on the
ground of abstract justice), we propose to give him only 45 per cent of what he has lost
on the ground that, as his plight is less serious, so he may get along with a smaller propor-
tion of help; and so in a similar way the suggested schedule deals with 80 and 70 per cent
dlsabilities. In detail the proposed compensation is as follows:

For» a 70 per cent disability, the equivalent of a life-pension of 35 per cent of the loss of wages.

For an 80 per cent disability, the equivalent of a life-pension of 40 per cent of the loss of wages.

For a 90 per cent disability, the equivalent of a life-pension of 45 per cent of the loss of wages.

For a 100 per cent disability, the equivalent of a life-pension of 50 per cent of the loss of wages.

We give herewith .a table in which the payments under the.present California schedule
and under the proposed schedu e have been .reduced to equivalent lump-sum payments
expressed in terms of weeks’ wages instead of in dollars and cents.

Table giving equivalent lump-sum payments for permanent disability for a man of age 39.

Per cent of disability. Present California law. Suggested schedule.
10 35.65 weeks’ wages 25.38 weeks’ wages
20 71.39 weeks’ wages 49.96 weeks’ wages
30 106.96 weeks’ wages 73.68 weeks’ wages
40 118.71 weeks’ wages 96.57 weeks’ wages
50 125.21 weeks’ wages 118.54 weeks’ wages
60 129.73 weeks’ wages 139.59 weeks’ wages
70 133.06 weeks’ wages 205.87 weeks’ wages
90 135.77 weeks’ wages 268.89 weeks’ wages
80 137.89 weeks’ wages 340.31 weeks’ wages

100 139.59 weeks’ wages 420.13 weeks’ wages

—6—

. These figures have also been put into the form of a diagram. The third (the straight)
line represents the payments under a system in which there is a uniform compensation of
half of the loss. The extent to which, in the diagram, the line of the proposed schedule
falls below this straight line represents the extent to which those who suffer from minor
disability are sacrificed for the benefit of those whose need is greater. It will be noticed
that, in the present California schedule, on the other hand, those who have lost much are
sacrificed for those whose loss and whose need are smaller, which is of course radically
wrong.

The suggested schedule proposes, however, in practice, to pay the death benefit and the
compensation for serious, permanent disability, as follows: A family in which the worker
has died is relieved from the expense of his keep; besides, there are doubtless some econo-
mies that can be put into effect, so that, instead of paying full wages for 3 years, it is pro-
posed to pay 65 per cent of wages for an equivalent time, say 4% years, or until the total
sum paid equals three times the annual average earnings. It is believed that the compensa-
tion will be more useful paid in this way.

In the case of total permanent disability, it is proposed to pay the death benefit of 65
per cent of wages for, say 4% years (thus allowing time for others of the family to develop
a wage-earning capacity) and a life-pension to the injured worker of one third of his wages
to pay for his maintenance. These two, together, are the equivalent, for the man of age 39,
of half wages for life. In cases of 70, 80 and 90 per cent disability it is proposed to pay
proportionately smaller sums distributed in the same way.

In order to ascertain the cost of a schedule it is necessary to have statistics (1) with
regard to the frequency of accidents in general, (2) with regard to the freqhency among
accidents of those causing (a) temporary disability, (b) permanent disability and (c) death,
(3) with regard to the duration of temporary disability, (4) with regard to the frequency
of accidents causing various degrees of permanent disability, (5) with regard to the cost of
medical aid, (6) in the case of some schedules, with regard to the frequency of various
particular accidents and the frequency of various degrees of dependency. For European
experience most of these data can be secured from the 24th Annual Report of the Com-
missioner of Labor or from Bulletin 92 of the Bureau of Labor, and as long as we lack
American experience these must be made use of. The following tables represent a combina-
tion of the German, Austrian, Italian and Russian experience:

Frequency of accidents: 6 per 100'? workers per year.

Out of every 100* accidents, 92 cause temporary disability, 7 cause permanent disability

and l is fatal.

Among 100 accidents causing permanent disability:
33 cause 10 per cent disability.
21 cause 20 per cent disability.
14 cause 30 per cent disability.
10 cause 40 per cent disability.

7 cause 50 per cent disability.
5 cause 60 per cent disability.
3.5 cause 70 per cent disability.
2.5 cause 80 per cent disability.
2 cause 90 per cent disability.
2 cause 100 per cent disability.

 

i‘After this figure had been adopted a Report from the Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board was
received giving the frequency of accidents in manufacturing industries for July, 1912, viz: 3051 accidents
among 584,559 workers. This is at the rate of 6.3 accidents per 100 workers per year.

*After these figures had been adopted a bulletin from the Wisconsin Industrial Commission was
received, containing the data on 5,241 accidents reported to that commission between September 1, 1911,
and June 30, 1912. This report does not include accidents in which the disability was less than one
week. The European experience that we have adopted gives 30 per cent of accidents causing temporary
disability in which the disability is less than one week. Making this same allowance for the Wisconsin
experience, we get the following results: out of every 100 accidents 92.3 cause temporary disability, 6.15
cause permanent disability and 1.55 are fatal. The agreement is of course remarkably close.

~‘l

AMOUNT OF COMPENSATI 0H

 

l I

0's

All ‘1 l 8V3 IO .40 EOVlHQDHJd

°6

o‘or

 

I

Mv'j vmuoanvau M13

\4

’\

 

   
  
   
    

HQCILIH

AII'HBVSKG .LHQHVNEJQd 30:1

SQWHQQHDS S HOIHVA

   

QTGVAVJ HOLLVS “361403

OHIMOHS NVHDVIG V

—-8—

Among 100 accidents causing temporary disability:
30 cause a disability of 1 week or less.
28 cause a disability of 2 weeks.

15 cause a disability of 3 weeks.
9 cause a disability of 4 weeks.
5.4 cause a disability of 5 weeks.
3.4 cause a disability of 6 weeks.
2.1 cause a disability of 7 weeks.
1.5 cause a disability of 8 weeks.
1.2 cause a disability of 9 weeks.

.9 cause a disability of 10 weeks.
.7 cause a disability of 11 weeks.
.5 cause a disability of 12 weeks.
.3 cause a disability of 13 weeks.
1.6 cause a disability of 20 weeks.
.4 cause a disability of 40 weeks.

On the basis of these figures the following results for cost are reached:

 

' Present California law. Suggested schedule:
(1) Temporary disability— (1 week waiting period) (2 weeks waiting period)
Average cost per case of temporary disability _________ 1.472 weeks’ wages 1.017 weeke wages
Average cost per worker per year ___________________ .0813 week’s wages .0562 weeks wages
(2) Permanent disability— ,
Average cost per case of permanent disability _________ 82.42 weeks’ wages 83.27 weeke wages
Average cost per worker per year __________________ .3462 week’s wages .3497 weeks wages
(3) Death— ,
Average cost per death 147.19 weeks’ wages 147.19 weeke wages
Average cost per worker per year ____________________ .0883 week’s wages .0883 weeks wages

The cost per worker per year for compensation (excluding medical aid) will therefore
be under the two schedules as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

Present California law. Suggested s’chedule.

Temporary disability .0813 week’s wages .0562 weeks wages
Permanent disability .3462 week’s wages .3497 week’s wages
Death ' .0883 week’s wages .0883 week’s wages
Total (excluding medical aid) ___________________________ .5158 week’s wages .4942 week’s wages

The .5158 week’s wages and .4942 week’s wages are, namely, the net premium for
insurance per worker per year for compensation (excluding medical aid). .

Mr. G. F. Michelbacher, of the University of California, has engaged to work out on
the same basis the comparative cost of compensation under the schedules of various states
of this country and Europe. His figures will be available to this Board_later and can be
furnished to any one who is interested. The figures for Massachusetts, Wisconsm and Ohio

are given herewith :

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts. 01110- “71599115111-
Temporary disability _________________ .0432 week’s wages .0834 week’s wages .0813 week:s wages
Permanent disability _________________ .2494 week’s wages .2623 week’s wages .3879 weeks wages
Death .0915 week’s wages .1172 week's wages .1155 week’s wages
.3840 week’s wages .4629 week’s wages .5847 week’s wages

So far as known, no American experience is available regarding the cost of medical

aid. Statistics at hand regarding the chemical industries of Germany make the cost of '

medical aid about 13 marks per case. As this relief in Germany is furnished through
hospitals and in an organized way, it is likely that the cost in this country would be two
or three times as great. It is very important to ascertain the.co.st of medical aid, particu-
larly with a view to deciding on the expediency of an upper limit. . ' _

It is possible to throw these figures for the cost of compensation into the ordinary form
for an insurance rate. Assume, for the sake of getting a definite result, that .the cost of
medical aid per case will be on the average two thirds of a week’s wage. This combined
with the figure for the percentage of frequency gives for the cost of medical aid .04 week’s
wages per worker per year. This makes altogether a net cost for_compensation- under the
suggested schedule of .5342 week’s wages per worker per year. ThIS.IS 1.03 per cent of the
annual pay roll. Assume that this is 43 per cent of the gross premiums (this gives about
the loading that is usual in the case of liability insurance; in the case of compensation there
should be little or no legal expense, but, on the other hand, there should properly be. a
large development of inspections and other preventive workpwrthout attempting to. Justify
this large loading we will assume it in this case in conformity With existing conditions);
this gives a premium rate of about 2.4 per cent of the pay roll. This is based on the
average of accidents in all industries; the rate for some industries would be higher and for

 

 

 

 

l W ._.9_‘

others lower.. It should be definitely understood that this is not put forward as the proper
average premium for California. It is only what the suggested schedule would cost on the
baSis of European experience and, furthermore, on the basis of a guess as to the cost of
medical aid.

The European figures that have been used are fairly applicable to our conditions except
as regards frequency of acCidents. The figure taken—6 accidents per hundred workers per
year—is doubtless too low for this country. But as this affects all costs under all schedules
in the same way, the value of the results for comparative purposes is not affected. The
proportion of fatal acc1dents is also doubtless too low. If, however, as in the case of the
Wisconsm experience, this is compensated by a lower proportion of cases of permanent
disability, the total cost of compensation will remain about the same.

_ No attempt has been made to take into account the limitations on cost that may be
introduced by the lower and upper limits of compensation to be paid; this may be attempted
later. The figures may be taken to apply to a man with the average wage.

A differentiation-in the amount of the award for various degrees of dependency is under
conSideration. This is very desirable if the system is to fit the actual needs of the case. The
most_serious objection seems to be the chance that it gives for discrimination against the
married man and in favor of the single man and against the man with a large family.
Whether, in states where such laws are in operation, there has been a noticeable discrimina-
tion of this sort is information which this Board would be glad to obtain.

_Undoubtedly the most important single figure to be obtained from accident statistics in
this country is the frequency of accidents, and this is probably exactly the one that in
general Will not be obtained. The reason for this is that to get the frequency it is necessary
to know not only the number of accidents but also the exposure; that is, the number of
workers among whom the accidents happened. This information is difficult to obtain and its
importance 15 not realized by those who have not studied the actuarial problem. There are
volumes of fire. insurance statistics, for instance, which are practically worthless for the
purpose of making rates because of the lack of such information.

For the results of accidents after they have happened, that is, with regard to their severity
and duration, European experience may probably be relied upon, for, as Dr. Rubinow says,
the. human. body is practically the same machine everywhere. But the frequency of
acc1dents Will be very different in different countries; this is due very largely to tempera-
mental differences in character; in this country, for instance, work is done under greater
pressure and we shall expect to find a higher accident rate. '

It is believed that the states in the collection of statistics should seek first of all to
obtain this figure, not only for accidents in general but for the different industries and for
different conditions. Other data with regard to the classification of accidents as to severity
and duration will be readily obtained, but unless special attention is paid to it, the figures
with regard to frequency of accidents per worker per year will escape.

Regarding the Rating of Disability.

The successful application of a schedule for permanent disability necessitates the determi-
nation of the degree of disability that has been produced by a given accident. Some states
have incorporated such schedules in their laws. A rating of disability can at best be only
approximately right, yet the method of arbitrarily fixing so much for a finger, so much for
an arm and so much for a leg is so crude that it will work injustice in a very large
proportion of cases. The index finger is more valuable to a typesetter or a stenographer
than it is to a laborer, and the loss of a leg to a bookkeeper is not so serious a misfortune
as it is to a stevedore. Further, a disability in general is more serious the greater the age
for the reason that there is less power of accommodation, less ability to learn a new
occupation, in which the injured member will not be so necessary.

What is required, therefore, is a schedule in which a rating shall be given to' each
physical disability for each age and each occupation. This would seem' at first sight to
involve a prohibitive amount of work, but by analysis it turns out to be practicable and, in
fact, a schedule of this kind is already under construction.

The method is, as follows: Assume as a basis an unskilled workman; that is, a workman
who has not specially developed any one part of his body. Assume at the one extreme
that a man of 75 has entire lack of accommodation; that is, in case of an accident he drops
down inside of his own groove to a lower earning power without being able to get into
another groove in which his disability will not produce so serious an effect. Assume, on

, the other hand, that a boy of 15 has perfect accommodation; that is to say, he is free so

to choose his occupation as' to put himself to as little disadvantage as possible. The lack
of financial freedom in the case of a lesser disability it is proposed to remove by a pension
during the period of accommodation. It is assumed that at intermediate ages the power
of accommodation grades evenly down with the age, so that, for instance, the power of
accommodation of a man of age 45 would be represented by the number one half.

__.10_

It is evident that what is to be counted as a negligible disability is negligible for all ages,
and, on the other hand, that in general a total disability is a total disability for all ages.

It is assumed further, arbitrarily, and this is subject to modification, that what is a. 20
per cent disability in the case of a man of 75 will be only .half that, or a 10 per cent disa-
bility, for a boy of 15. That is, in cases where a man With no power of accommodation
would drop to 80 per cent of his former earning power a boy of 15 would be able to
accommodate himself to the situation so as to command 90 per cent of the average wages
during his life that he would have earned if he had not been injured: Certain further
assumptions have been made that lead in a systematic way to the followmg table which is
taken as a basis table:

 

 

TABLE A.
Table giving percentage degrees of disability for various ages for an average unspecialized worker.
Age.

. 15 27 39 51 63 75
10 12 14 16 18 20
25 28 31 34 37 40
45 48 51 54 57 60
70 72 74 76 78 80

 

100 100 100 100 100 100

 

The table says, for instance, that what is a 60 per cent disability for a man of 75 will
be only a 51 per cent disability for a man of 39, the disability of a man of 75, that is a man
having no accommodation, being used as the standard. In practice the table will be
enlarged to proceed by 3 year and 10 per cent (instead of 20 per cent) intervals; that is,
there will be 21 different ages and 10 Lines instead of 5; under age 75, therefore, the
disabilities will be 10, 20, 30, etc., up to 100.

The influence of occupation will be taken care of in the following way: A typesetter has
lost two fingers; let us suppose for the average unskilled man without accommodation that
this would count as a 20 per cent disability. It is much more serious for the typesetter
and for a typesetter without accommodation it may be given a plus rating of 40 per cent;
that is 60 per cent in all; but for a boy of 15 who is a'typesetter it will count no more
seriously because of the fact that he is a typesetter, for he is so slightly established that
he can readily turn to another trade. The rating for intermediate ages will therefore run
from 10 to 60 (see table C) for the typesetter as against 10 to 20 (see table A) for the
average unskilled man. It is possible in this way to construct tables for various plus
ratings.

For some occupations, on the other hand, specialization has had the effect that a particular
part of the body has lost some of its value. For example, a bookkeeper is not as much in
need of a leg for the purposes of his business as the ordinary unskilled worker. We may
therefore give a bookkeeper a minus rating with regard to the loss of a leg; let us suppose,
for instance, for the unskilled man without accommodation that we rate the loss of a leg
at 60, then for the bookkeeper without accommodation we will rate it at 50; that is, we
give the bookkeeper a (--10) rating for loss of leg, meaning that the 10 is to be subtracted
from the standard rating for the unskilled worker; but for the boy of 15 it rates at 45
just as before. For the occupation of bookkeeping, therefore, the rating for the loss of a leg
runs from 45 to 50 (see table F) instead of from 45 to 60 (see table A). If we had rated
the occupation (—15) the rating would have been the same for all ages, namely, 45. If
we had rated it (—20) the rating for an old man would actually be less than for a boy,
which could be justified only on the ground that the older man was established in his
business while the boy, because of his accident, might find establishment difficult or impos—
sible. However, it is not believed that it would be wise to admit cases in which the effect
of the disability was counted as decreasing with age.

The following are given as examples: The standard table, A; the (+10) table, B; the
(+40) table, C; the (+60) table, D; the (—.5) table, E; and the (—10) table, F. ‘

TABLE B (+10).

 

 

Age.
15 27 39 51 63 75
Line I ___________________________________ 10 14 18 22 26 30
Line II __________________________________ 25 30 35 40 45 50
Line III _________________________________ 45 50 55 60 65 70
Line IV _________________________________ 70 74 78 82 86 90
Line V __________________________________ 100 100 100 100 100 100

 

 

“rt

4‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 11 — I
TABLE C (+40).
Age.
15 27 39 61 63 75
Line I .................... 10 ' 20 30 40 50
_______________ 60
Line II .................................. 25 36 47 58 69 80
Line III _________________________________ 45 56 67 78 89 100
Line 1V ""1. ____________________________ 70 76 82 88 94 100
Line V 100 100 100 100 100 100
TABLE D (+60).
Age.
15 27 39 51 63 75
Line I ______________________ 10 2A 38 52
_____________ 66 80
Line II __________________________________ 25 40 56 70 85 100
Line III ................................. 45 56 67 78 89 100
Line IV _________________________________ 70 76 82 88 94 100
,Line V __________________________________ 100 100 100 100 100 100
TABLE E (——-5).
Age.
15 27 39 51 63 75
10 11 12 13 14- 15
25 27 29 31 33 35
45 47 49 51 53 5"
ifie IV ................................ 70 71 72 73 74 75
e V __________________________________ 100 100 100 - 100 100 100
TABLE F (—10).'
Age.
15 27 39 51 63 75
Line I 10 10 10 10 10 '
Line II ................................ 25 26 27 28 29 :13
Line III _________________________________ 45 46 47 48 49 50
Line IV ................................ 70 70 70 70 70 70
Line V .................................. 100 100 100 100 v 100 100

 

 

In the application of this method it will be necessary to ive a standard r '
phySical disability and to qualify it for every occupation; ligiit as a matter ozinplrgacffizeeiteli};
assumed that the occupations .will fall into a comparatively small number of different
classes; for example, it does not appear that the effect of an accident in the case of a
carpenter would differ essentially from that in the case of a machinist. By the standard
rating we shall mean the rating for the average unskilled workman without the power of
accommodation; the unskilled workman is taken because he has not developed any one
part of his body above the others. For each occupation or class of occupation we shall
then add _whatever qualifications are necessary because of the special value of certain
hlghly trained parts of the body or because certain parts have lost their importance. A

fragment of such a table might appear as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occupation.
P i _ Standard _

hys cal disability rating. Stanza Loco-

Printer. Stevedore. iron motive

worker. engineer.
Loss of index finger ................................ Line I 0 A A A
Loss or leg ____ Line III E A A A
Loss of major arm--____-.' _______________________ '-, Line IV A A A A
(7 Partial loss of balancing power ___________________ Line I A A O A
. Slight tendency to epilepsy (caused by accident) Line II A A B D

 

 

_12_..

This table indicates, for instance, that to find the disability rating for a stevedore of
age 39 who has lost an index finger, one reads the third entry in line I of table A (the A
wherever it occurs meaning “standard”); this gives a rating of 14 per cent of disability.
A printer, however, is rated table C, that is (+40), for the loss of his index finger, and,
by reading line I of table C, we get a rating of 30 per cent disability for a 39-year old
printer. On the other hand, the printer is rated table E, that is (—-5) for the loss of a
leg, so that by reading line III in table E we get for a 27-year old printer a rating of 47;
the loss of a leg for a stevedore is, however, rated table A, or standard, so that by reading
line 111 in table A we get for a 27-year old stevedore a rating of 48 as against 47 for the
printer. For age 63, however, the loss of a leg for a stevedore rates as 57 against 53 for a
printer.

Of course it is understood that these figures have been given only in the way of illustra—
tion and in no sense as a determination of the proper ratings for these various disabilities.
The medical department of the University of California has undertaken to assist in making
a standard table for the various disabilities, in addition to which it is proposed to secure
the European experience on this subject. In order to get the plus and minus ratings it
will be necessary to have the advice of men familiar with the details of the different occu—
pations. It is believed that when these tables are made and in the hands of employers 90
per cent or more of cases can be settled satisfactorily, that is, on a basis of real justice,
without any appeal to a State Board or Commission.

It would be very desirable if the different states could unite on some such uniform plan
of rating disability in order to make it possible to combine their statistics for rate-making

ur oses.

p It might also be noted that a table of this kind can be used for rating the disability
produced by a combination of injuries to several parts of the body. The result is not
obtained by simple addition; on the one hand, in such cases as that of the eyes and the
arms, where one member can be trained to do the work of the other, the loss of both
members would be more than the sum of the disabilities produced by the loss of each. On
the other hand, where the injuries are to parts of the body that have independent functions,
the addition of the two figures would give too high a rating. For instance, suppose the
rating for a major arm were 80 and for a leg 60, the rating for the loss of both should
hardly count as a total disability as it would if simple addition were used. The following
analysis may be used: A man who has lost a leg has only 40 per cent of earning power
left. The loss of an arm will take away 80 per cent of his remaining earning power, or 80
per cent of 40 per cent. The loss of a leg and arm will thus count as a 60+32 or 92 per cent
disabilit .

For grgans having the same function it will be necessary to treat each separate combina—
tion; for example, both eyes, both arms, etc.; but as there are only a few of such combina-
tions, these could easily be all set down in the schedule of permanent disabilities.

It must be remembered in this connection that, in spite of the fact that the problem is a
difficult one, it must be solved; that is, judgments with regard to the degree of disability
must be made and anything that can be done to systematize the process will be a clear gain.

 

U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

CDESLSEEBH

RETURN Government DocumentsDepartmenl
' IO—> " 350 Main Library 642-2568

 

LOAN PERIOD I

2

3

 

4

 

 

 

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

 

"RUDE AS STAMPED BELOW

 

Iv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

FORM NO. DD7. 68m, 1/82 BERKELEY, CA 94720

®s