of the cases as early as the first week of the disease. Therefore the answer is not to increase the presumptive period, but to fight for adequate and competent review boards, Veterans' Administration or civilian. To be sure that inductees are prompt to report illness and that adequate records which can be referred to later are kept by the military installations. I sincerely hope that this is of help to you. FRANCIS M. FORESTER, M. D. TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL ON H. R. 4214 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. At the very outset, I should like to thank you for scheduling a hearing on H. R. 4214, the bill I introduced to provide additional compensation for veterans having the service-incurred disability of deafness of both ears. Some time ago, I met a young man who belongs to the same Disabled American Veterans chapter to which I belong in Peoria, Ill., and I was astonished to learn from him through our conversation that even though suffering from a complete loss of hearing as a result of his war service, he was not receiving a statutory disability award. This young man was exposed to considerable gunfire and the noise of aircraft. There was no history of ear disease nor associated illness before his entry into the service. This young man has been examined by the best qualified doctors in the country on ear disease, including Drs. Walsh, Rosen, and Shambaugh. Dr. Morris H. Cohen, of Peoria, who was also treating the patient, indicates in a letter to the DAV-which, incidentally, I should like to have included with my testimony-that the boy has "total disability of both ears." I have been advised "off the record" that our pilots are under constant danger of incurring similar disability because of the noise produced by our jet engines. I am sure we all realize that the Air Force or any other branch of service would not submit a statement emphasizing the danger of a particular assignment even though it be obviously hazardous duty. Because it is obvious, there is no need to advertise the point, but each man takes a calculated risk and I think we ought to take a look into the periscope and provide for the future of those who might likewise suffer complete loss of hearing as a result of their service. The case of the young man in my district is not an isolated one. Since introducing this legislation, I have received a number of letters from veterans in all sections of the country who are suffering from complete loss of hearing and who have urged me to press for favorable consideration of my bill. I am sure the chairman and the distinguished members of this committee have received communications from those individuals and veterans' organizations seeking passage of H. R. 4214 and the companion bill in the Senate, S. 1611. Incidentally, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt devoted her nationally syndicated column of February 13, 1958, to this measure. Subparagraph (k) of paragraph II, part I, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a) as amended, states, if the disabled person, as the result of serviceincurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or use, in varying degrees, of various body organs and appendages, the rate of compensation shall be increased by $47 per month for each such loss or loss of use, but in no event to exceed $420 per month. It seems only logical and fair that this same rate should be applied to the compensation given to veterans having the serviceincurred disability of deafness of both ears since we are giving it to those who have injured their creative organs, feet, hands, eyes, and buttocks. To my mind, complete loss of hearing is just as tragic a loss as the aforementioned disabilities, and I sincerely hope the committee will give favorable consideration to this measure and report it to the House. Re Richard Moss. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, 704 Commercial National Bank Building, PEORIA, ILL., December 31, 1956. Peoria, Ill. GENTLEMEN: This patient has requested that we forward the results of a recent examination to you. Mr. Moss was seen in my office on December 5, 1956, with a history of progressive hearing loss first noted while in service in World War II. There is a history of exposure to gunfire and the noise of aircraft. There was no other history of ear disease nor associated illness which might account for the hearing loss. The patient has been seen by some of the best authorities in the country on ear disease including Drs. Rosen, Walsh, and Shambaugh, all of whom have advised the patient that there is no therapy of value. It is obvious that the patient does not accept this conclusion, and is constantly seeking some help as these patients in desperate circumstances sometimes do. In talking to the patient it was evident that he was lip-reading and using the speech of someone with severe nerve deafness with its peculiar monotone. Physical examination from an ENT standpoint was not remarkable. Functional tests with tuning fork and audiometer revealed total loss on the right with questionable hearing on the left with reading around 100 db. for air conduction in that ear. I must conclude that this patient has a profound deafness which if my findings are correct would give him total disability in both ears. There is present a peculiar personality makeup which I mention because of the possibility of functional aspects to the hearing loss. While I do not believe at this moment that this patient is malingering, I do feel compelled to mention this possibility because of the peculiar personality involved. I would strongly recommend that this patient be reexamined by one of the men mentioned above so that they may compare the present findings with the previous examination and also to consider the possibility of functional loss as mentioned. Very sincerely yours, MORRIS H. COHEN, M. D. Mr. DORN. We are delighted to have with us this morning our distinguished colleague from Colorado and member of this committee, Mr. Aspinall. STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, first I wish to thank you personally for permitting me to make my statement this time this morning in order that I may get to another committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today in support of my bill, H. R. 9896, which I introduced early in this session at the request of the American Legion. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the American Legion since early 1919, being a charter member of Lincoln Post No. 50, Department of Colorado. The bill seeks to provide that the disease of multiple sclerosis shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in the service if it is diagnosed within 3 years of the date of discharge of the veteran. The present law on this subject is 2 years, and this 2-year provision was provided several years ago after this committee had made a rather full study of the disease of multiple sclerosis and had obtained considerable testimony from officials of the Public Health Service. This disease, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most difficult diseases to diagnose. Medical sicence had made great strides and all of us acclaim the progress which has been made. However, because of difficulties inherent in diagnosing multiple sclerosis I think the Congress is fully warranted in extending the presumptive period for 1 additional year. I think it should be borne in mind, too, that the basic premise of veterans' laws is that doubt should be resolved in favor of the veteran and in such a serious disease as this certainly it is better to err on the side of generosity than to be too restrictive in application of the law. The second disease covered by my bill is officially described as chronic functional psychoses. The present limitation on this disease is also 1 year, and my bill seeks to extend the presumptive period to 3 years. However, there is another provision under the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 which provides that if the disease of psychosis is diagnosed 2 years from the date of discharge this shall provide for priority in the admission to a Veterans' Administration hospital for care and treatment. No compensation is provided by this second provision, and my bill, of course, would provide both admission priority and also full compensation. Great strides have been made in treatment of the diseases of the mind in recent years, but most psychiatrists will acknowledge that we have much ground yet to cover. Who can say with certainty that a man who has undergone combat or a man who has been removed from a restrictive environment and placed in the somewhat rigorous life of one of the branches of the Armed Forces, and who later cracks up did not have the seeds of crackup planted during the period of service? Here again, I think we should be generous in protecting the veteran and his family. We come to another practical consideration here. People who are suffering from this disease must be treated and taken care of whether they are veterans or nonveterans. In most instances the expense must be borne by the Government-Federal, State, or local. If a man is a veteran I think he should be cared for in a veterans' hospital. I hope that the committee will see fit to report liberalizing legislation along the lines provided for in my bill. Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am not exactly sure of the position of the Veterans' Administration. The last paragraph of a report from the Surgeon General reads as follows: If you will indicate the general disease areas which your committee is interested in in reconsidering the present provisions for statutory presumptions of service connection, we will be glad to make available to you the technical advice of Public Health Service experts in those fields. We do not however believe that we are in a position to comment on the desirability of the particular proposals. Mr. TEAGUE (California). Which report is that? Mr. ASPINALL. Committee print 202 from the Surgeon General. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DORN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Teague? Mr. TEAGUE. No. But just let me say that we have been glad to have had you and I think it is a good bill and certainly deserves the consideration and support of the subcommittee. Thank you so much for coming over. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Mr. DORN. We thank you. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION Mr. DORN. I would like to state Mr. Thompson is acting executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association of the United States. Mr. Thompson, we are glad to have you and you may proceed and say anything you have on your mind. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words to the committee this morning with reference to two bills which have been introduced and are presently before the committee. The first is H. R. 10461. Section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 deals with disability compensation which is paid to veterans who have or who have incurred disabilities in the Armed Forces when those disabilities are considered to be service connected. Subsection (m) of section 315 respecting blindness currently reads: * * or has suffered blindness in both eyes, rendering him so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance ***. H. R. 10461, as you know, would amend subsection (m) by inserting immediately before ** or has suffered blindness in both eyes having only light perception * * *. We feel that this amendment is desirable and necessary in order to correct certain inequities which have developed because of the varying definitions given to the phrase: *** so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance *** Under subsection (1) of section 315, a blinded veteran is entitled to receive disability compensation if he has suffered blindness in both eyes, with 5/200 visual acuity or less * * *. Also, under subsection (n), a blinded veteran may be entitled to receive a statutory award if he *** has suffered the anatomical loss of both eyes ***. In both instances, subsections (1) and (n), this determination is made upon the determination of physical findings. Under subsection (m), respecting the condition of blindness as cited above, an intensive subjective entity has been brought into the picture. The Veterans' Administration has interpreted this to mean that in order for a totally blinded veteran to receive disability compensation under subsection (m), it must be shown that he is "helpless." The Veterans' Administration rating boards and local regional offices are charged with making these determinations and they are made in these rating boards on each individual case, but there is no uniformity of decision. Some rating boards have denied a totally blinded veteran disability compensation under subsection (m), because, in their opinion, he was not helpless, whereas in other rating boards veterans with similar eye conditions have been granted the award. We feel that this is a basic denial of the excellent rehabilitation policies that have been espoused by our Government and effectively implemented by the Veterans' Administration. We believe that it is unfair to deprive a blinded veteran, a totally blinded veteran, of disability compensation because he has, through the process of rehabilitation, demonstrated his independence. In short, the Blinded Veterans Association believes that a veteran who is totally blind, having only light perception, should be entitled to receive his disability compensation based upon specific physical findings, and not upon a subjective determination, in the same way that veterans with a small residual vision, 5/200, or less, and veterans with the anatomical loss of both eyes receive their awards, based upon specific physical findings. We respectfully urge favorable consideration of this piece of legislation. Now, Mr. Chairman, is it proper for me to comment upon the other bill I have in mind or shall I wait until a later time? Mr. DORN. Yes, Mr. Thompson. We will be glad if you do. H. R. 10462. The beneficiaries of this legislation would be the survivors of veterans who fall into the so-called severely disabled category. Subsections (m), (o), and (t) of section 315 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957, which are, of course, referred to in this 10462, these subsections involve veterans who have suffered blindness in both eyes or the double loss of, or loss of use of, extremities, or combination of these disabilities. The Blinded Veterans Association believes that the survivors of these veterans should be entitled to receive dependency and indemnity compensation without regard to whether or not the veteran's death was service connected. This group of veterans find it is extremely difficult to prepare for the future of their families and provide for certain eventualities, using the normal insurance channels. Insurance coverage for these men is either prohibitedly expensive or not available at all in the normal way. Likewise, in this group, you will find the highest proportion of veterans, who despite rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation, and job placement assistance, have found it very difficult or impossible to get gainful employment. These men, through the statutory awards, disability compensation, with careful planning, find it possible to order their lives with a certain measure of independence and without the degradation of severe financial privation. They are not, however, for the most part, in a position to put into practice the saving and the laying aside of funds, which is so important to their families. Although, in many cases, the deaths of these men cannot be traced directly to their service-incurred disabilities, it is probable that in many instances the severe nature of these disabilities has, generally speaking, shortened their lives. Who can say that men who are living out their lives carrying on day-to-day activities under the handicaps of blindness or of bilateral amputation, are not subject to stresses and strains which will eventually take their toll? Many veterans, or the survivors of many veterans who are currently receiving or entitled to receive disability compensation on the death of the veteran, may be entitled to receive a death pension from the Veterans' Administration under the appropriate circumstances. That pension amounts to $50 approximately a month for unremarried widows, $60 for a widow and 1 child, and $7.50 for each additional child. Considering the rather unique situation of the group of men about which I am talking, this is not a large sum upon which to plan for the future. We are dealing here with a group of individuals who have been, and are being, deprived of the opportunity to provide adequately for their families across the board due to their service-connected disabilities. The Blinded Veterans Association feels that this is an area of responsibility which has so far been overlooked and we offer H. R. 10462 as a means of correcting that oversight and urge your favorable consideration of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 27111-58-5 |