Opinion
No. 3571.
Decided January 2, 1946.
An injury caused by the workman's own failure to have remedial care is not one which arises out of and in the course of his employment and is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
PETITION, for workmen's compensation under P.L., c. 178 and amendments thereto (R. L., c. 216). The plaintiff employee suffered a compensable injury on July 18, 1940. The employer paid him the expenses of remedial care for four months and one-half of his lost average weekly earnings for a period of ten weeks. The statute then in force provided for remedial care for the first thirty days. The Court found that he was entitled to payments for a further period of three weeks of total incapacity and on June 6, 1945 gave judgment for $31.50.
The nature of the injury was a ruptured urethra and since the accident occasional treatments consisting of soundings have been necessary. If it were not for these treatments the plaintiff would have been unable to work and death would have resulted. The plaintiff argued that he should have been paid compensation on the same basis as if he had not had such treatments. He excepted to the failure of the Court so to rule.
A bill of exceptions was allowed by Goodnow, J.
Arthur J. Bergeron, for the plaintiff, submitted no brief.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh Langdell, for the defendant.
One cannot recover compensation for an injury in so far as it is caused by one's own neglect to have remedial care. The injury to this extent does not arise out of and in the course of the workman's employment. The proximate cause is the plaintiff's own failure to use reasonable care to overcome his disability. "The chargeable disability is only that resulting from accident incurred in employment, and not that caused by the workman's carelessness preventing or delaying recovery from the accident." Neault v. Company, 86 N.H. 231, 232. See Perreault v. Company, 87 N.H. 306; Vallee v. Company, 89 N.H. 285; 105 A.L.R. 1470n.
The questions of what injury the plaintiff would have suffered if he had not taken the medical treatments and whether such omission would have been lack of due care are moot. Only actual injuries, past, present and future, are compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Judgment for $31.50.
All concurred.