The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1918-12-19
COURT SAYS NO FACTS SUBMIT
TED TO JUSTIFY ORDER
AGAINST AETNA.

the industrial accident board, COM
and w. H. Cassidy, which declared
that the Aetna company had not COM
piled with the law in various particu-
lars and was therefore disqualified to
do such business in the state. Appli-
cation was made to Judge Mccarthy
by Walter C. Lindsey and Grover C.
TYLER on behalf of the company for a
writ of mandate compelling the board
70 accept the business of the Aetna
company. To this the industrial &C.
cdent board demurred, and it was on
the demurrer that the decision was
rendered.
Every Point Overruled.
Every point raised by the accident
board in objecting to the Aetna COM
pany's operation in the state is at
tackled by the court in its opinion,
which is in part as follows:
THE first reason (for the boards
action) is that claims secured by the
company are not expeditiously and
promptly settled as contemplated by
said law. For the reasons given
above in Analysing the sentence of sec
ton IS, which gives the board power
to withdraw its approval for failure
to pay an award, this pretended rea-
son or ground is not sufficient in law
l. comes squarely within the decision
mentioned to the effect that the board
Las no right to base it's action or eX-
ercise it's discretion upon a matter
which is not contemplated or recog-
nized by law
Broad Language" Says Court.
1.-THE second reason or ground as
signed is that said security is not
satisfactory to this board. This is
very broad language. 1t may be that
the form of security offered is not
satisfactory to the board because the
board prefers that employees should
insure directly in the state insurance
funds, but, under the provisions Of
the law, it can not be pretended that
that would be any legal reason for re-
fusing to accept the security. The
allegations of the complaint tend to
slow that the security is sufficient
under all the provisions of the law
which governs.
The board is bound by that law, as
To-, III. tod he
board has not arbitrary power to de-
eide what security is satisfactory to
it and what is not. No fact is set
forth in the resolution which tends to
show that the security is not suffi-
Gent under the law. Therefore it
does not seem to me that this broad
language used by the board consti-
tutes any legal ground or reason for
refusing to accept 'the security
Mere Recital Not Enough.
What has been said in the preced-
ing paragraphs applies with equal
force to the next ground or reason
mentioned in the resolution, namely:
that. it appears to the board that
workmen intended to be secured un-
der such surety bonds written by said
company are not fully protected,
Here again, the board Incorporates
into it's resolution a few of the words
used in section 65. These words,
standing by themselves, might sug-
gest that the board had absolute
power to decide whether the work.
men are fully protected, and if the
rest of the section were disregarded'
that conclusion might be reached.
But, as above stated, my conclu-
sion is that it is the boards duty ana
right to decide whether workmen are
fully protected in accordance with the
provisions of the law Their power
is by no means arbitrary. Therefore
] conclude that the mere recital ny
the board that the workmen are ho'
fully protected is not sulllcleh'
ground or reason for withdrawing ltS
approval.
Workmen Are Protected.
NO fact is stated in the resolution
tending to show that workmen arr
not fully protected; to the contrary
the allegations of the complaint snow
that they are fully protected. {.
THE next ground or reason assign
ed is that the company has not
sufficient deposit with the state treas
urer upon which execution may law
fully be issued. The complaint al
leges that the company had and Ia
deposit of $4,000 In accordah'
with the provisions of the law o
1918. In my opinion that set
ties the question.
THE next ground or reason as
signed is that the company has re
fused and does refuse to write certai
risks required to be written By iaV
classifying them as prohibited lisH
As above stated do not fin1 an
provision in section S. or any oth'
provision in the law which gives u
board the power to refuse the con
pany the right to do business TO" ar
such reason.
No Authority for Act.
1T is not necessary to enter up
discussion Of the constitution
81,