Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-55

Opinion No. 55 County ConmlissioneJ·s---.Clairns-Coun- ty CoroneJ's-Physicians-AlItopsy. HIITLD: It is entirely within the dis- cretion of the board of county commis- sioners whether they apprm'e or reject nny clnim presented to them. A county coroner, a practicing physicinn, may employ another physiCian to assist in performing 'an autovs~', and the board of county commissioners may allow a claim for such physicians' services if it is satisfied that the performing of the autopsy did not exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion. January 31, 1933. You have requested an opinion from this office on the following matters: 1. What discretion has the Board of County Commissioners to allow or disa 11011' claims. 2. l\Iay a County Coroner, a practic- ing physiciall, call in another physician to assist in performing an autopsy? section 4605, H. C. M. 1921, provides for the presentation and allowance of elaims by the Board, and Section 4610 provides for an appeal when a claim is disallowed. In this connection your attention is also called to section 9035 OPIXIOXS OF THE A'1v.rOnXEY GENI;;""HAL 47 which applies in ense of the rejection fir the Board of County Commissioners of any claim presented .to them. '1'he ~u!Jreme Court of :\Iontana held in Greeley v. Cascade County, 22 l\Iont. 580, p. 586, that one might follow the provisions of 4610 in case a claim was rejected by the Board of County Com- missioners or he might proceed under section 9035 which is referred to in that opinion as section 517 ill the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the opinion of ·this office that either eourse may be pursued in ease a claim is rejected and it is also the opinion of this office that it' is entirel~' within the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners whether they nppro~:e or reject any claim presented to them. '1'he Board of Count~· Com- missioners is the chief executil'e power of a coullty and their discretion in such matters is practically unlimHed, sub- ject always, of course, to appeal to the courts. In regard to question number 2, the fees allowed to a coroner are provided for in sect'ion 4922, R. C. M. 1921, and there is no par·mcular reference made to any fees to be allowed the coroner for an "investigation" and in anything tha t the coroner undertakes to do he should be governed by section 12381, R. C. 1\1. 1921. and section 12381 i" to be t'onstrued ill connection "ith 4848, R. C. 1\1. Ill21. . Just wha t the coroner's duties are ill regan1 to autopsies and the calling in of additional physieians to assist in such autopsy does not seem to have heen dealt with in Montana. In Clay County v. Thol'l1ton, 119 S. W. 246, the court said: "A coroner does not ex- ceed his authority in employing more than one phySiCian to make an autop- s~·." And in Sandy v. Bom'd of COIll- missionel'S, 87 N. E. 131, the court held as follows: "The power to hold an autopsy in connection "ith inquests mllst he exercised within some I'eason- ahle presumption that death resulted from yiolence. .. 0 0" '1'he coroner, of course, should use di;;cretion as to \l'hen all autopsy is necessary and the rule is l·er.l· gener- ally applied that the expense of an in- quest should not be incurrei.! unless thel'e is reasonable grounds for as- suming that the law has been liolated or there has been a crime committed. '1'he general intellt I'lllllling through these decisions and sections should goyern the Board of County Commis- sioners in dealing with any claims pre- Sented by the coroners. It is. of course, always within the discretion of the Board of County Com- missioners to allow or reject II claim hv II coroner or anyone else for sen'- ices rendered and if at any time the coroner appears to have exceedN1 the hounds of reasonable discretion it is the duty of the Board of County Cmn- missioners to reject the claim 3m1 }Jilt a claima nt to the necessity of showing the meri ts of his bill.