Case Name: ACCIDENT INDEX BUREAU, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD J. HUGHES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RAYMOND F. MALE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, AND THOMAS L. FRANKLIN, OF THE DIVISION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1965-12-20
Citations: 46 N.J. 160
Docket Number: 
Parties: ACCIDENT INDEX BUREAU, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD J. HUGHES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RAYMOND F. MALE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, AND THOMAS L. FRANKLIN, OF THE DIVISION OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 160–172

Head Matter:
ACCIDENT INDEX BUREAU, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD J. HUGHES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RAYMOND F. MALE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, AND THOMAS L. FRANKLIN, OF THE DIVISION OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued October 11, 1965
Decided December 20, 1965.
Mr. James Dormeni, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for defendants (Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. David J. Goldberg, Deputy Attorney General, and Mr. Dormenb, of counsel).
Mr. Edward B. Meredith argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Meredith & Meredith, attorneys; Mr. Meredith, of counsel).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered
Per Curiam.
Defendants appeal from an adverse ruling in the Appellate Division upon a petition brought by Accident Index Bureau, Inc., for a declaratory judgment requesting that court to hold unconstitutional and void (1) N. J. S. A. 47:1A-1 et seq., "The Right to Know Law"; (2) parts of Executive Order No. 9, effective October 1, 1963; and (3) a regulation of the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, dated July 31, 1963 and effective October 1, 1963. The appeal is here on our grant of certification. 43 N. J. 353 (1964).
Although the facts are stated in the opinion below, 83 N. J. Super. 293 (App. Div. 1964), for convenience, we summarize them. Accident Index is engaged in a service of searching public and other records and providing abstracts of the records to its subscribers who are various companies and employers throughout the State. A majority of its searching is in the field of workmen's compensation records with special reference to past injuries of prospective employees. Eor the latter purpose Accident Index searches the records required by statute to be maintained and filed in the Division of Workmen's Compensation pursuant to N. J. S. A. 34:15-59.
In 1958, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry took note of an Accident Index brochure distributed to employers in New Jersey soliciting new customers. It appeared that the Commissioner was of the opinion that the brochure was designed to discourage the employment of the handicapped or previously injured workmen and the filing of claims with the Division nf Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner requested the Attorney General to advise him as to his authority to prohibit the Accident Index from inspecting the records of the Division of Workmen's Compensation. On March 26, 1958 the Attorney General advised the Commissioner that he could prohibit the searching of the records "where the purpose of the search is to provide employers with information concerning prospective employees," inasmuch as the public policy of the State is to effectuate the re-employment of the handicapped and injured woxdiers. No action was taken by the Commissioner until July 31, 1963 when he promulgated a regulation which plaintiff here attacks.
In "The Right to Know Law" the Legislature declared "it to be the public policy of this State that public records shall be readily accessible for examination, by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest." N. J. S. A. 47:1A—1. In implementing this policy the act provided:
"Except as otherwise provided in this act or by any other statute, resolution of either or both houses of the Legislature, executive order of the Governor, rule of court, any Federal law, regulation or order, or by any regulation promulgated under the authority of any statute or executive order of the Governor, all records which are required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file by any board, body, agency, department, commission or official of the State or of any political subdivision thereof or by any public board, body, commission or authority created pursuant to law by the State or any of its political subdivisions, or by any official acting for or on behalf thereof (each of which is hereinafter referred to as the 'custodian' thereof) shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be public records." L. 1963, c. 73, § 2; N. J. S. A. 47:1A-2.
Pursuant to this authority, the Governor, in three Executive Orders Nos. I, 8, 9, empowered the chief executive officer of each of the executive departments of the State Government to adopt regulations specifying which records would be or would not be subject to public inspection. Acting under this authority, on July 31, 1963 the Commissioner of Labor and Industry promulgated the regulation, effective October 1, 1963, providing in part that:
"The following records shall not be deemed public records, copies of which may be purchased or reproduced under the provisions of Chapter 73, P. L. 1963:
a. All records required by statute to be made, maintained or kept on file pursuant to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, R. S. 34:15-1 et seq., if the purpose of the inspection or copying is to provide employers with information concerning prospective employees."
The Appellate Division held the regulation to be invalid because (1) it unreasonably discriminates between an employer who contemplates hiring an applicant and an employer who has already employed him, and (&) it either operates to deny employers a right of inspection affirmatively assured by statute, or alternatively, if the regulation allows that right to an employer who examines the record himself but not to an employer who seeks to examine it through an agent, the line so drawn is arbitrary.
We gather the Commissioner did not intend to deny an employer access to pertinent records for any legitimate purpose, including a decision as to whether to hire a given man. What disturbed the Commissioner was the fact that the plaintiff, a profit-making corporation engaged in examining public records, advertised for business in terms which suggested that a man who has had a compensable experience should be suspected of being accident prone or a malingerer or a professional claims collector.
The Appellate Division expressly refrained from deciding "the propriety of plaintiff's advertising methods" (83 N. J. Super., at p. 302). One can readily understand the Commissioner's concern with that bind of thing. The policy of the compensation law is that compensation shall be paid for every compensable experience, and that no employee shall waive what is due him. See Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Holderman, 75 N. J. Super. 455, 467-468 (App. Div. 1962), affirmed o.b. 39 N. J. 355 (1963). To that end the statute requires reports of the occurrence of compensable events and of settlements privately made, so that the administrative agency may learn whether the policy of the law is being met. N. J. S. A. 34:15-96 thru 102. To the same end, the statute provides that no binding disposition of an employee's formal petition can be made without the approval of the administrative trial tribunal. N. J. S. A. 34:15-22.
Whatever would intimidate a workman to' forego a legitimate compensation demand is hostile to the purpose of the statute, and militating to that end is propaganda that an employee who sought what was due him and now wants employment should be suspected of being accident-prone or a malingerer or a professional claims collector. This, together with the impact of that kind of solicitation upon the statutory rehabilitation program, is what understandably disturbed the Commissioner.
Plaintiff refers to N. J. S. A. 34:15-59, which reads:
"The secretary of the bureau shall keep a docket in which shall be entered the title of each cause, the date of the determination thereof, the date of appeal, if any, and the date on which the record in case of appeal was transmitted to the appellant. The secretary shall also file the record of each case left with him by the official conducting the hearing, and shall keep a card index of such record in such manner as to afford ready reference thereto. Such records shall he open to the inspection of the public."
Plaintiff stresses the sentence we have italicized and urges that this legislative direction 'is absolute. It should be noted that this section deals only with the formal compensation proceedings and not with the reporting records to which we referred above. As to those records, we note that the compensation act, N. J. S. A. 34:15-99, provides:
"The first reports of accidents filed with the workmen's compensation bureau, shall not be made public, and shall not be open to inspection unless, in the opinion of the commissioner of labor, some public interest shall so require, and such reports shall not be used as evidence against any employer in any suit or action at law brought by an employee for the recovery of damages."
We note too that the statute apparently is silent with respect to disclosure of the reports of informal agreements for compensation, although perhaps section 99 can be construed to embrace them, a question we need not pursue at this time. Suffice it to say that the explicit statutory direction in section 59, quoted above, does not apply to all records of compensation claims or payments, and hence, even if it were deemed to be absolute and to bar all discretion in the Commissioner, still the section does not cover the total ground covered by the regulation in question.
The difficulty we have with the regulation in question is that it is not appropriate to the end in mind. At argument the Commissioner conceded the regulation would not bar inspection by an employer himself but rather bars only such inspection by others. Thus a legitimate interest is frustrated in order to bar the poor behavior of some independent agency. We hesitate to find the Commissioner may thus restrain the legislative mandate of section 59 that "Such records shall be open to the inspection of the public," in the absence of experience demonstrating that an abuse of that right to inspect cannot be isolated and dealt with directly. A regulation denying access to the records by an independent agency which interferes with the basic objectives of the compensation law described above, with standards suitably expressed to forewarn, would be to the point. Such a regulation would present the question whether the Commissioner may thus protect the legislative policies of the workmen's compensation statute notwithstanding either section 59 of that act or the provisions of the "Right-to-Know" law. That issue is reserved, and of course nothing we have said shorrld be thought to question the power of the Legislature to deal with the problem.
The judgment is affirmed. No costs.