Johnson v. United States
This text of 67 Ct. Cl. 318 (Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a claim of an officer of the Medical Corps for 50 per centum increase of pay for the period from May 15, 1920, to TViarch 31,1921, inclusive, during which time he was detailed to duty as a flight surgeon at Luke Field, T. H. The sum of $934.12 was paid to plaintiff but was later deducted from his pay for the reason that during the time in question there was no provision of law authorizing the payment of increased flying pay to an officer of the Medical Corps. Plaintiff is suing to recover said sum.
The claim arises under the acts of'June 4, 1920,1 41 Stat. 769, and June 30, 1922,2 42 Stat. 724.
The findings show that plaintiff was in fact on duty requiring regular and frequent aerial flights. It was his duty when engaged in aerial flights to observe the pilot’s mental and physical condition and report to the commanding officer what he had observed and whether the pilot was in proper physical and mental condition to meet the monthly flying requirements of the department to maintain his flying status.
[322]*322The plaintiff after his assignment performed the flights required of him during the period from June 1,1920, to March 30, 1921. The service was of a dangerous character, inasmuch as he took the chances of the inefficiency of the man whose condition he was undertaking to ascertain.
The flying service was a part of his regular duty and was not incidental as in the Culver case, 60 C. Cls. 825, 271 U. S. 315. The case is covered by the principles announced in Bradshaw v. United States, 62 C. Cls. 638, and Luskey v. United States, 56 C. Cls. 411, 262 U. S. 62.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $934.12, the amount deducted from his pay, and judgment should be entered for that amount. It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 Ct. Cl. 318, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 373, 1929 WL 2666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-cc-1929.