The modern system of workers’ workers compensation is arcane and produces a lot of grief to those who have to deal with it daily. The very regulations that created it are the reason that so many people have problems with it. The look at New York workers compensation over the years shows the failure of the historical alternatives to formal New York workers compensation systems to meet the goals of social justice or economic efficiency. Orthopedic surgeons lament the difficult cases, and it may cause the worker pain to deal with it-but New York workers compensation is not without its benefits. The Ancient New York workers compensation The history of workers compensation for injury began soon after the advent of historical references actually being written down. In fact, the Nippur Tablet No. 3191 came from ancient Sumeria in the fertile crescent shows the laws of Ur-Nammu, the king of the city state of Ur. It dates back to 2050 BC. The law of Ur provides workers compensation for injury to workers body parts and this included fractures. Then in the code of Hammurabi there were a similar set of rewards for injuries. The Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Chinese also had workers compensation schedules with precise payments for the loss of body parts .Under Ancient Arab laws the loss of a joint of the thumb was worth one-half of the value of a finger. The loss of a penis was workers compensationensated by the amount of the length and then the value of an ear was all based on the surface area. The early workers compensation schemes consisted of “schedules” like specific injuries that determined specific rewards. Impairment, or the loss of ability had not actually happened as of yet. The workers compensation schedules of the ancient past were replaced with feudalism of the Middle Ages and they became the primary structure of government. In fact, often times arbitrary of the feudal lord determined what the injuries garnered compensation. The concept of workers compensation for the worker was bound up in the doctrine of noblesse oblige. The development of English common law in the Middle Ages provided a legal outline that continued into the late Middle Ages and Renaissance provided a legal framework that persisted into the early part of the 19th century. For instance, if a worker was in anyway responsible for his injury the doctrine of contributory negligence held that the employer was not at fault. That is regardless of the hazards that they were exposed to daily. In the United States there was a case Martin v. the Wabash Railroad in which the conductor fell off his train. Inspectors blamed a loose handrail and his injuries did not receive workers compensation because the train inspection was one of his duties. There was another called the “fellow servant” rule. In that employers were not held liable if the workers injuries resulted in any part from the action or negligence of a fellow employees. This was established in Britain in 1837. Luckily, the laws have changed and if you have questions we suggest contacting a Queens workers compensationention lawyer Getting a claim figure out is the best way to proceed.