This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
—The communication of Dr. Donald Lowe in The Journal, July 25 (p. 267), on silicosis and workmen's compensation, and the comprehensive reply, embody a matter of great importance. In Ohio, each compensable occupational disease, of which there are twenty-one listed, is separately scheduled and the exact nature of the occupational exposure is definitely defined. I am at loss to see why Dr. Lowe contends that silicosis should be still further "separated" in order to be admitted as a compensable disease for the reason that there may be difficulty of diagnosis or that the Ontario law, which has compensated the disease for years, particularizes it, so as to be acceptable under the various laws of our states. I agree with the specialist's point of view that there should be no more difficulty in diagnosing this affliction and fixing it as an occupational disease than is the case for
Hayhurst ER. COMPENSATION FOR SILICOSIS. JAMA. 1931;97(9):660–661. doi:10.1001/jama.1931.02730090074024