12 Wn.2d 334, LYDIA C. O'NEIL, Respondent, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Appellant

[No. 28542. En Banc.     Supreme Court      January 29, 1942.]

LYDIA C. O'NEIL, Respondent, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF
                SOCIAL SECURITY, Appellant.1

[1] OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE - MEDICAL AID - AUTHORIZED PRACTITIONERS - OPTOMETRISTS. Under 15 of initiative measure No. 141, one eligible for senior citizen grants is entitled to receive treatment by a licensed optometrist.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wright, J., entered July 23, 1941, upon findings, reversing an order of the department of social security denying a request for optical care. Affirmed.

The Attorney General, Phil H. Gallagher and R. C. Finley, Assistants, and Pat Guimont, for appellant.

Ralph L. J. Armstrong, for respondent.

Laube & Laughlin, Patrick A. Geraghty, and Lionel E. Wolff, amici curiae.

MAIN, J. -

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court reversing an order of the state department of social security. January 9, 1941, one Lydia C. O'Neil, who was a recipient of an old-age assistance grant, requested authorization from the administrator of the Thurston county welfare department for optical care, to be rendered by a licensed optometrist. This request was denied, and the applicant appealed to the department of social security. That department likewise denied the request, from which the applicant appealed to the superior court. The trial in that court resulted in findings of fact and conclusions which


1 Reported in 121 P. (2d) 396.

[1] See 40 Am. Jur. 966.

      O'NEIL v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SECURITY.     335 
 Jan. 1942]     Concurring Opinion Per STEINERT, J.

sustained the application. From the judgment reversing the order of the department of social security, that department appealed.

[1] There is no difference, in principle, between this case and the case of Martin v. Department of Social Security, ante p. 329, 121 P. (2d) 394, just decided. That case was one asking for sanipractic treatment, while this one is requesting treatment by a licensed optometrist. That case is controlling upon this appeal.

The attorney's fee in this case is fixed in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars.

The judgment will be affirmed.

ROBINSON, C. J., BEALS, BLAKE, JEFFERS, and DRIVER, JJ., concur.

STEINERT, J. (concurring) - For the reasons stated in the case of Martin v. Department of Social Security, ante p. 329, I think that the amount of the attorney's fee to be allowed should be fixed at five hundred dollars.

MILLARD and SIMPSON, JJ., concur with STEINERT, J.