WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 1319

motion, require the claimant to appear before an arbitration committee
appointed by it and consisting of one representative of employes, one repre-
sentative of employers, and either a member of the Commission or a person
specially deputized by the Commission to act as chairman, before which
the evidence in regard to the claim shall be adduced and by which it
shall be considered and reported upon with the right of either party to
appeal to the Commission from the finding of said arbitration committee
on all questions of law and fact. If changes of circumstances warrant an
increase or rearrangement of compensation, like application shall be made.
No increase or rearrangement shall be operative for any period prior to
application therefor. At any time after a claim for compensation under
this Article has been filed with the State Industrial Accident Commission
by any claimant, the said claimant and/or his or her dependents may, with
the approval of the -State Industrial Accident Commission, enter into an
agreement with the employer or insurer of such employer providing for a
final compromise and settlement of any and all claims which the said em-
ployee or his or her dependents might then or thereafter have under the
provisions of this Article, upon such terms and conditions as the Commis-
sion shall, in its discretion, deem proper. Any such settlement when ap-
proved by the Commission shall be binding upon all parties thereto, and
no such settlement shall be effective unless approved by the Commission.

This section referred to in construing sec. 54. Ireland v. Shipley, 165 Md. 99.

This section referred to in construing secs. 14, 30, et seq. Owners' Realty Co.
v. Salley, 157 Md. 143.

Cited but not construed in Balto. Pub. Co. v. Hendricks, 156 Md. 80.

See notes to sec. 36.

42.

Failure to accept medical attention; when question not open on appeal. Mc-
Culloh v. Restivo, 152 Md. 60 (Cf. dissenting opinion, page 69).

This section referred to in construing sec. 36. Cambridge Mfg. Co. v. John-
son, 160 Md. 256.

See notes to sec. 65.

43.

Where widow testified (and was partially corroborated) that she had been
deserted by husband and that he had been contributing to her support, held
legally sufficient to find entire dependency. Harvey v. Roche, 148 Md. 368.

This section referred to in construing sec. 39—see notes thereto. Dickson, etc.,
Co. v. Beasley, 146 Md. 572.

The right to reopen is merely for the purpose of considering new conditions
arising from aggravation, diminution or termination of injury. Gold Dust
Corp. v. Zabawa, 159 Md. 667.

This section referred to in construing sec. 54, Ireland v. Shipley, 165 Md. 99.

Cited but not construed in Balto. Pub. Co. v. Hendricks, 156 Md. 80.

44.

See notes to sec. 40.

45.

See notes to sec. 62.