I am inclosing herewith a copy of a letter addressed by me to your bureau under date of September 17, 1920, which sets forth clearly my feelings with regard to this particular case.

I am inclosing herewith also a copy of the reply I received, which tells its own story.

It seems to me that the holding of the bureau is entirely arbitrary, and I feel that if some one capable of a real interest in cases of this kind would investigate it the decision of the board of appeals may be reversed. I feel that all the evidence on file in your bureau has not been considered thoroughly, and I shall appreciate your kindness in examining the previous papers on file, since I know that this man received a serious shell shock in action, and I can not conceive of any reason which should bar him from compensation, since any ordinary mind can connect his present disability (sciatic nerve trouble) with the injury he received in the service.

Very truly, yours,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

NOVEMBER 17, 1920.

Hon. FRANK B. KELLOGG,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR KELLOGG: Replying to your communication of the 15th, with reference to Mr. Daimond's case, the files disclose that no real medical examination seems ever to have been made. On July 9, 1920, Mr. Daimond was examined by one Dr. W. D. Brodie, who reported simply what Mr. Daimond told him as to the trouble he had with his leg while in the service, stating that any disability, if such existed, was less than 10 per cent, and that the only derangement noticed was the nervousness of the claimant. Dr. Brodie also stated that the claimant was referred to an attending neurologist, Dr. Hengstler. There is a communication in the files from Dr. Hengstler, dated July 13, 1920, which is also entirely negative. Dr. Hengstler sums up his diagnosis as follows: "One can not make a diagnosis of neurological disease here at present; whether this is a mild mental state or just an irritable disposition, it is impossible to tell."

This is the only medical information which was in the possession of the bureau. When the case went twice before the board of appeals, their ruling was evidently passed on these reports.

I would suggest that Mr. Daimond procure reports of medical examination from his own physician in the form of an affidavit, and that the same be forwarded to me personally upon its receipt.

As I mentioned in a recent communication of mine, there is always a disposition to accept the facts of a case as they are presented, as it is much easier and less troublesome than going behind their presentation.

This seems to be an instance in which that was done, and if the facts, as now before the bureau, are going to be accepted as conclusive, I can readily see how the bureau would not be justified in awarding compensation. There is, however, no reason why the real facts of the case should not be presented and acted

upon.

Yours, sincerely,

W. BISSELL THOMAS, Associate Counsel, Bureau War Risk Insurance.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
November 10, 1920.

Mr. W. BISSELL THOMAS,

Bureau of War Risk Insurance, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. THOMAS: Confirming conversation I had with you this morning relative to the compensation claim of John L. Golob (C-372178), I want to assure you in writing that both my secretary and myself know positively that Mr. Golob has been incapacitated since the date of his discharge on August 1, 1920, and, beyond peradventure, is entitled to an award of compensation based on total temporary disability.

While at Hibbing on October 29 we interviewed Mr. Golob, and also a number of prominent business men who voluntarily related the circumstances surrounding his case. Mr. Golob is the only Hibbing boy who was wounded during the war, and consequently the entire village is interested in his case, knowing that Mr. Golob he has been unable to obtain compensation from the Government. and his friends, however, simply expressed the opinion that his case had been

treated perfunctorily, and none of them expressed the slightest animosity. They felt, of course, that if your bureau had the matter properly brought to its attention it would be adjusted to their entire satisfaction.

Since I have been commissioned by them to present the claim to your bureau, I appreciate deeply the courtesy you showed in making inquiry of my secretary relative to the case, and I feel that your bureau will do everything in its power to adjust this claim on the basis of total temporary disability from August 1. 1920.

Assuring you of my best thanks for the attention you have already bestowed upon the matter I am,

Very sincerely, yours,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
November 15, 1920.

W. BISSELL THOMAS, Esq.,

Bureau of War Risk Insurance, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. THOMAS: When I returned to Minnesota last June I was interviewed by Mr. Anthony C. Disterhoff, of Silver Lake, Minn., relative to an award of total permanent disability. The record will show the United States Public Health Service has hospitalized this man for a long period of time. His case is one of quite severe intestinai adhesions, and after interviewing Mr. Disterhoff three times I was convinced that he should be entitled to an award of total temporary disability, since his nervous system is completely shattered and he affirmed that he could not sleep nights on account of the pain which his affliction caused him.

I think the hospital authorities were too severe in their treatment of this patient. His name, in the first place, attached to him a certain odium, and also the accent with which he speaks. He is exceedingly nervous and petulent. which is due to his broken-down condition. They finally reached the point where not being able to tolerate him any longer they told him to go home and go to work, which constituted an injustice, since Mr. Disterhoff is absolutely incapable of performing any kind of work.

As I say, he should be receiving compensation based on a total temporary disability award. I am not sure that such an award has been granted. Mr. Disterhoff considers that he is entitled to total permanent disability compensation, but even though the medical records afford him this finding I do not think it would be advisable to make such an award in his case on account of the psychic effect it would have on this patient.

I am interested in knowing whether he is receiving compensation based on a total temporary disability award and whether, under the law, the Government assumes the burden of paying his insurance premiums. It is my impression that the law provides such relief, but it nray be that I have in mind one of the bills which failed of passage last June.

Thanking you in advance for your advice, I am,

Very sincerely, yours,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

Mr. THOMAS. I want to call the committee's attention to just one among these, the case of Milford A. La Fleur. In that case the man had been taking vocational training and was discharged by the Vocational Training Board because he was bedridden; he is still bedridden in the St. Barnabas Hospital, Minneapolis, and he finally got his compensation, but I had to do a great deal of work myself in order to get it back for him. Col. Hallett's letter to Miss Rebecca Cassell, of the American Red Cross, is as follows:

In reply to your telegram of October 11, 1920, we have the honor to advise you that compensation payments have been resumed in the case of the aboveentitled claimant in the amount of $63.33 for a temporary partial disability of 66 per cent, effective April 1, 1920, at which time he discontinued his voca tional training.

This letter is dated October 20, 1920. It took from April 1 to October 20 to resume compensation payments to a bedridden patient,

with a wife and two children to support; it took that long after his discharge by the Vocational Training Board.

There is just one other matter which I want to call to the committee's attention, and that is with reference to remarks I made last Wednesday about the rating of disability, treating it purely as a medical question instead of an economic question. There is a letter here from Col. Cholmeley-Jones to Mr. Schall in connection with the case of Edward J. Jolicoeur (C-175835), in which he says, in part:

From a careful review of the medical evidence in his file, the medical rating already given him is considered commensurate with the surgical disability suffered by him incident to his military service.

That, I think, is conclusive in substantiating what I said last Wednesday, that disability is treated by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance wholly and purely as a medical question and not at all as an impairment of earning capacity.

Here is the case of a tubercular patient who was almost on his deathbed before he could get any treatment at all by reason of the mix-up between the Public Health Service and the War Risk Insurance Bureau.

Now, Mr. Sweet, do you desire me to take up Mr. Schall's questions? Mr. SWEET. They are questions submitted by Congressman Schall, of Minnesota, and I think you have covered most of them, but I thought it would be best to make his letter a part of your statement before the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. The first question is:

In what way, and by whom, are disability ratings established?

I think I have covered that.

Mr. SWEET. I think you have.

Mr. THOMAS. The second question is:

What are the functions of the boards of appeal, and medical and legal review, and in what way are these functions administered?

I think I have covered that. The third question is:

What time usually elapses after a disabled man terminates vocational training before he is again in receipt of compensation?

Well, offhand, I would not like to definitely go on record in answering that, but I should say, from the cases that have passed through my hands, that it would be about six months.

The fourth question is:

What, if any, check is there upon examiners in the War Risk Bureau and physicians in the Public Health Service tending to eliminate delay or mistakes?

I know of none and I never saw any. The checks were all put on the disabled soldiers, and if a disabled soldier did not get what he thought he was entitled to it was his fault; the examiner and the Public Health doctor were always right. The fifth question was:

What are the present functions of the legal division, and how are they administered?

That is so large a question that I do not believe the committee would care to enter into it, and it would only be my personal criticism anyway. I am perfectly willing to state that I am full of it, but I think I had better keep it on my chest.

38074-21-7

There is one matter I want to touch on very briefly, harking back to what I said last Wednesday, and that is the matter I spoke to you about the other day just for a moment, and I can cover it in a second. It relates to subsection 2 of section 302 of the original war risk act. That section provides:

A schedule of ratings of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combinations of injuries of a permanent nature shall be adopted and applied by the bureau. Ratings may be as high as 100 per centum. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations and not upon the impairment in earning capacity in each individual case, so that there shall be no reduction in the rate of compensation for individual success in overcoming the handicap of a permanent injury.

The bureau has construed that to mean a general average of impairment and not an average classed by occupations; in other words, they have construed it to mean this-and I will take the case of soldiers losing their left hands: They have said that if a lawyer loses his left hand his earning capacity is not hurt at all, but we will be liberal and we will give him 10 per cent; they say that if a telegraph operator loses his left hand he is not hurt very much, but we will be liberal with him and we will give him 20 per cent. Then along comes a common day laborer, who can not do anything else; they say he is pretty badly damaged and all he can do is to be a watchman, a timekeeper, or something of that sort, and we will give him 60 per cent. So there we have three cases, one with 10 per cent, one with 20 per cent, and one with 60 per cent, or a total of 90 per cent for the three, and if you divide that by 3 it makes an average of 30 per cent, so that this day laborer gets 30 per cent instead of 60 per cent. This is not intended to be taken as an actual example. It is given by way of illustration only.

Mr. SWEET. Your position is that you do not find any fault at all with what Congress has done, and you do not complain about the law Congress has passed in regard to the disabled soldiers, but your complaint mainly is as to the administration of the law as it now exists!

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Sweet, I have never seen a United States actand I have had to do with a great many of them during the last 30 years that allowed so much discretion, that gives so much power, and is full of so much possible good, in the way of allowing discretion to the administrative officers, as the war risk act, but they in their puerility have piled incongruity on incongruity until nobody in the world can untangle it. It is like the young lawyer who has his first case; he loses his first case, but he finds some mighty new points. They are over there finding new points all the time and incorporating them in their decisions. Then, another thing, those men are in a judicial position. They are not like a young man out in civil life who has just as smart a man as he against him. They are sitting in an impregnable position, and what they say goes. That is the trouble with it. They hand a very important matter over to a law student, one just out of law school, one who has never had an office, a client, or a case. They hand him the act and say, "Write an opinion on this feature of it." He does it, and we see the practical effect of it in these cases. The young lawyer in the bureau is not in the position of a young lawyer outside, because the young lawyer outside goes before a court and there is a lawyer on the other side of the case. But

n the bureau the decision of the young lawyer is final and the disbled soldier suffers for it. If the committee had the time to hear me and I had the time to go into Mr. Schall's last question, I am free to say the committee would absolutely want corroborative evidence from the records as to the things I would truthfully say. They would not believe it possible that sensible and decent Americans would get into the mix-up that that bureau has gotten into. I thank the committee very much for hearing me.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE MacGREGOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before the committee for the purpose of stating my views with reference to the conditions existing in regard to ex-service men. I have handled between 4,000 and 5,000 cases during the last two years, and I know that many of the things that have been said by the gentleman who preceded me are true and correct. I think he is probably right in the proposition that there is too much dispute as to legal propositions, instead of trying to give the service men what they are entitled to.

I had one instance of that the other day, with reference to the situation at Saranac Lake. Quite a number of boys are up there suffering from tuberculosis. One boy, in whom I was especially interested, was located in a boarding house that was perfectly satisfactory to him. He was located there with his sister, who is also afflicted with tuberculosis. He asked that he be permitted to remain in that place at the rate of $3 per day maintenance, but it seems that some time ago the United States Public Health Service insisted that all men at Saranac Lake who desire to be taken care of should locate themselves in boarding houses with which the Public Health Service had made contracts for maintenance.

I conceive that the result up there, although I might be mistaken, of the insistence of the Public Health Service on those boardinghouse keepers making contracts was that the poorer houses entered into contracts, and the ones that desired to exercise some discretion as to what men they would take in did not make contracts. This man was staying in a house where he was paying $3 per day, while at these other houses, and some of them were not so good, the men were being boarded at the rate of $4, $4.50, and $5 per day. Upon my taking it up with the tuberculosis section, they insisted that the word "hospitalization" in the act required that a contract be entered into, and that that was the only way in which they could take care of the boys. They insisted that they did not have discretion to say to a man, "Now, we will pay your maintenance in such an amount, or $3 per day, and you can go where you want to."

Mr. RAYBURN. I do not think that would be wise. Do you think it would be wise for them to say, "We will pay you so much money, and you can go where you want to"? He might have some friend there who did not live in a place that the Public Health Service considered the proper place. Do you not think that the Public Health Service ought to exercise some degree of control over those matters?

Mr. MACGREGOR. I think that in a place of that character, where it is a community for tuberculosis patients only, that might be done.