The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-02-04
SICK BENEFITS.
A Decision Of Interest to the Beneficial
PrnteFnIties,

l
A Decision OF Interest 10 the Beneficial
Rraternities.
In the suit brought recently by George
Linlebury against Cincinnati Lodge No. 9,
%. o. F., to recover sick benefits, some
questions Of interest were disposed Of in
the Court Of Common Pleas Of that city.
1t appeared from the evidence that the
plaintiff is and has been sick for many
years, having received a sunstroke; that
the effect was not to impair his physical
condition, but in so affecting his brain
that he was not able to perform his ordin'
airy labor. This was the testimony Of
physicians who had examined him. The
evidence for the defense was that OF non.
experts entirely, who did not observe any.
thing peculiar in his condition.
Judge Longworth, in disposing OF the
case, said that the principal defense was
that, by a rule OF the order, where dis
pute arose as to whether member was
entitled 10 benefits, II was referred TO arb.
tration and settled, and that 1t was final
between the parties. The preponderance
OF the testimony was that the plaintiff had
been rendered unfit to maintain himself;
that he engaged sometimes in making
paper boxes, but this was work which any
child could do, and the plaintiff earned at
1t only about SIS year, so that 1t was to
be disregarded as not being work by
which he could support himself in whole
or In part. The District Court in case
like this, that went up from the Court,
held that the Order has power to
make laws by which disputes shall
be referred to arbitration, and when an
award is made it is final, and that such
a contract is not against public policy or
the laws OF the State. il the dispute then
was determined by the lodge, uRder the
rules OF the order, and an appeal was had
and decided against the plaintiff, that set
ties the case. But the constitution OF the
Order provides that member becoming
sick shall be entitled to receive the bene.
fits for which the plaintiff brings this suit
II is the duty Of the officer entitled the
"Noble Grand" to see those sick benefits
shall be paid as they become due. Sec.
ton OF Article 8, the only provision in
THE constitution on this subject, provides
that should the Noble Grand be OF opinion
that the party was not so sick as 10 be un.
athletic procure subsistence, and dispute
arises, the matter should be referred by
the Noble Grand TOT reputable physician
whose decision, when approved by the
lodge, shall be final. A dispute did arise
between the Noble Grand and the plain
tif, and 1t was referred TO physician who
made.a report that was disapproyed by
the lodge. The report was that the MEM
Der was suffering not from physical but
from mental disease. The report did not
say whether he was able to support HIM
self, but 1t was report in favor OF the
member. 1t was claimed by the lodge
that this decision was not appealed from,
but that the appeal was from prior de-
cision. However, such an appeal as was
taken was dismissed.
There was no provision other than the
one referred TO in the constitution on the
subject, and the question was whether the
case at the bar falls within that section.
1t is the intent that where dispute arises
a summary method shall be provided Of
having It determined by one or more
respectable physicians. The law does not
say the lodge shall receive the report Of
the physician and then decide whether the
party is entitled or not to benefits, but 1t
Is that the decision Of the physician shall
settle the case on approval by the lodge.
The only power given to the lodge is to &C.
cept and approve Of the physicians re-
port. Here the physician reported that
the member was entitled to the benefits.
The lodge disappearing the report leaves
the case where It stood before. The commit
tee dismissed the appeal. The defendants
deny auyappeal was taken. According to
theirshowing the lodge had no power to
take the action they did take, and such ac-
ton never was the subject OF review. The
lodge had no right to adjudicate anything.
The matter was referred to an impartial
physician, and the wisdom OF such rule
Is apparent in a case like this. Here 1t ap-
pears from the testimony Of the physician
who made the report, and from other ply
siCians, that the man really was sick and
had lesion OF the brain, which would
not be manifest to those unacquainted
with brain diseases, and the matter having
been referred to physician he determined
upon the case and made his report. Others
who knew nothing about 1t say they did
not see anything peculiar in the man.
The lodge ought to have accepted the re-
port. Their refusal amounts to nothing
but refusal to comply with the contract.
Judgment for the plaintiff.