Jacobs v. United States

181 Ct. Cl. 1141, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160, 1967 WL 8813
United States Court of Claims·Decided December 15, 1967·No. No. 126-65·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam: :

Tbis case was referred to Trial Commissioner Mastín G. White with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on January 27, 1967. Exceptions to the commissioner’s findings and recommended conclusion of law were filed by plaintiff and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court is in agreement with the opinion and recommended conclusion of law of the commissioner, with modifications, it hereby adopts the same as modified as the basis for its judgment in this case, as hereinafter set forth. Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.

Commissioner White’s opinion,* as modified by the court, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the widow of Allan A. Jacobs, a physician, who was commissioned at the age of 30 as an Assistant Surgeon in the Deserve Corps of the U.S. Public Plealth Service on November 4, 1942, who was detailed to active duty as a medical officer with the U.S. Coast Guard on November 5, 1942, who continued to serve in that capacity until he was released from active duty with the Coast Guard, under the point system, as of the close of business on June 29,1946, and who received an honorable discharge from the Public Health Service on July 10, 1946. Dr. Jacobs later died on April 16, 1964.

The plaintiff claims that her husband, because of a heart condition, was permanently incapacitated for active service when he was released from active duty with the Coast Guard and when he was honorably discharged from his commission as a Deserve officer of the Public Health Service; and, accordingly, that he was entitled to disability retirement pay for the period between such discharge and his death.

The plaintiff contends that the question of Dr. Jacobs’ entitlement to disability retirement pay as of the time of his release from active wartime duty with the Coast Guard [1143] should be determined “under the Act of April 3,1939,” as construed in numerous cases decided by this court and cited by the plaintiff. The quoted statutory reference is understood as referring to the last proviso of Section 1 of the Act of August 30,1935 (49 Stat. 1028), as amended by Section 5 of the Act of April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 555, 557), by the Act of July 25,1939 (53 Stat. 1079), and by the Act of December 10, 1941 (55 Stat. 796). This proviso was codified in the 1946 edition of the United States Code as 10 U.S.C. § 456, reading in part as follows:

All officers * * * of the Army of the United States, other than the officers * * * of the Regular Army, if called or ordered into the active military service by the Federal Government for extended military service in excess of thirty days, * * * and who suffer disability * * * in line of duty from disease or injury while so employed shall be deemed to have been in the active military service during such period and shall be in all respects entitled to receive the same * * * retirement pay * * * as * * * [is] now or may hereafter be provided by law or regulation for officers * * * of corresponding grades and length of service of the Regular Army * * h1

It will be noted that the statutory provision quoted in the preceding paragraph was applicable to officers of the Army of the United States (except Regular Army officers), and did not refer to officers of the other military services. Dr. Jacobs was not an officer of the Army of the United States, and he did not perform any active wartime duty with the Army. Dr. Jacobs was a Reserve officer of the Public Health Service, and he was detailed to active wartime duty with the Coast Guard.

While Dr. Jacobs was serving with the Coast Guard, there was enacted the Act of November 11, 1943 (57 Stat. 587), relating to the organization and functions of the Public Health Service. Section 8(b)(2) of this statute (57 Stat. at page 589) provided that while commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, regular or reserve, “are detailed [1144] for duty with the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard, [such officers] shall be entitled to full military benefits with respect to such duty.” Section 8(a)(1) of the same statute (57 Stat. at page 588) defined the term “full military benefits” to mean—

* * * all rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits provided under any law of the United States in the case of commissioned military and naval personnel of the United States * * * on account of active military or naval service, including, but not limited to, * * * retirement, including retirement for disability * * *.

It apparently was the intention of the Congress, in enacting the statutory provisions quoted in the preceding paragraph, that an officer of the Public Health Service, while detailed, for duty with the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard, should be eligible for retirement, including disability retirement, on the same basis as officers of the particular military service with which he was serving.

However, the Act of November 11,1943 was on the statute books only a few months before it was repealed and superseded by the Public Health Service Act of July 1,1944 (58 Stat. 682). This change occurred before the happening of any of the events on which the present claim is based. Section 212(b) (2) of the 1944 statute (58 Stat. at page 689) provided, in language similar to that previously used in Section 8(b) (2) of the 1943 statute, that commissioned officers of the Public Health Service “shall be entitled to full military benefits with respect to active service performed while detailed for duty with the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard,” but, from the standpoint of the present case, Section 212(a) (1) of the 1944 statute made a crucial change in defining the term “full military benefits.” The new definition declared that the term “full military benefits”—

* * * means all rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits provided under any law of the United States in the case of commissioned officers of the Army * * * on account of active military service * * *; excluding, however, retired pay * * *.2 [Emphasis supplied.]

[1145] Thus, Congress clearly provided in the 1944 statute — using plain, unambiguous language for tbe purpose — that thereafter the “full military benefits” to be accorded officers of the Public Health Service detailed for duty with the military services should not include retired pay. The reason for this exclusion was that the 1944 statute itself contained specific provisions relating to the retirement of officers of the Public Health Service, including retirement for disability incurred as an incident of wartime duty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jacobs v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 1141, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 160, 1967 WL 8813 (cc 1967).

181 Ct. Cl. 1141 (Jacobs v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Holland
111 F.2d 949 (Ninth Circuit, 1940)
United States v. Still
120 F.2d 876 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)
Patten v. United States
161 Ct. Cl. 131 (Court of Claims, 1963)
Gordon v. United States
162 Ct. Cl. 740 (Court of Claims, 1963)