172 A. 95 | Conn. | 1934
These two cases present the same question of law. The plaintiffs in both claim compensation for incapacity resulting from mercurial poisoning, *301 an occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of their employment in the hat industry. In each the commissioner denied compensation because of a failure of the plaintiff to meet the requirements of the statute as to written notice of the claim for compensation. In the Farmer case the first manifestation of a symptom of the disease occurred in the fall of 1931, the plaintiff became incapacitated March 2d 1933, but he made no written claim for compensation until June 5th, 1933. In the Mockovak case the first manifestation of a symptom of the disease was in January, 1932, the plaintiff became incapacitated in October, 1932, but he made no written claim for compensation nor did he make any request for a hearing in regard to it nor was it assigned for hearing within one year after the first manifestation of a symptom of the disease.
The law to be applied is that in effect when the plaintiff's right to compensation arose, that is, when a compensable incapacity occurred. Preveslin v. Derby Ansonia Developing Co.,
Previous to the time when the Act of 1927 became effective, the law had required written notice of a claim for compensation to be made "within one year from the date of the injury." General Statutes, Rev. 1918, § 5360. We construed the date of the "injury" to mean, not that of "the accident or occurrence which caused the injury" but the date when the injury became compensable. Esposito v. Marlin-Rockwell Corporation,
In these cases the requirements of the statute, so construed, were not met and we cannot abrogate the clear expression of the legislative intent embodied in it.O'Brien v. Wise Upson Co., Inc.,
There is no error in either case.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.