"It is accordingly possible to refer the claimant's injury to an event capable of being fixed in point of time. In the second place, the injury to the claimant's eyes was neither reasonably to be expected, nor the natural or inevitable consequence of the work he personally was engaged upon. The injury must therefore be ascribed to accident. The claimant's particular work had nothing to do with the painting operations going on about him. His work as a ship fitter related to the laying of places in the boiler room; the painting was being done by others."
But if, instead of Hill, one of the painters had been poisoned and incapacitated by the fumes of lead paint, a similar claim would not have been allowed by the solicitor. This is made perfectly clear by his decision in the John Freiman case.
John was a laborer in the Boston Navy Yard, and it was his duty to scale off lead-painted compartments on ships. He became incapacitated by "lead poisoning contracted in the course of his employment," and his superior officer certified that the injury was not due to negligence or misconduct. After John had suffered several weeks as a result of "painter's colic" and chronic lead poisoning, his claim was submitted. It was necessary to decide whether the law applies to disease due to the occupation. The solicitor declared:
"There is no such special provision made, and I can find nothing which would, in my judgment, justify its application to a case of lead poisoning or 'painter's colic.'"
The difficulties involved in legal technicalities become apparent. The following story, verbatim from the government report (page 201), about William Murray, who suffered with compressed air illness, strikingly illustrates the point:
"The claimant in this case is a laborer employed by the Reclamation Service, at Arizona shaft, Colorado River siphon. The claimant's duties required him to work in compressed air. In consequence, he was attacked with 'a severe case of bends,' which 'settled in nearly all parts of the body.' When originally presented the claim was disallowed on the ground that the bends is a disease, and diseases contracted in the course of employment as distinguished from injuries of an accidental nature are not within the operation of the compensation act. A reconsideration of this action 'with a view to the allowance of the claim, if the same is deemed to come within the letter of the statute as it seems to come within its spirit,' is now requested by the secretary of the interior, who writes that a refusal to approve this claim may cause a number of men to leave the work, as, on account of the bends, it is generally regarded as very hazardous."