Laino v. Secretary of Defense

292 F. Supp. 252, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11725
CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedNovember 1, 1968
DocketCiv. A. No. 68-825
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 F. Supp. 252 (Laino v. Secretary of Defense) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Laino v. Secretary of Defense, 292 F. Supp. 252, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11725 (D.S.C. 1968).

Opinion

ORDER

SIMONS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the petition for writ of habeas corpus of Mrs. Pauline Laino on behalf of her minor son Hector Laino, a selective service inductee into the United States Army from Brooklyn, New York, who is presently stationed at Fort Jackson Military Reservation, Columbia, South Carolina and is currently confined to the Fort’s stockade for his refusal to engage in the Army inductee training program upon the ground that he is physically unfit and unable to do so.

The petition alleges in substance as follows: That Hector Laino was duly registered with his local selective service board in Brooklyn, New York and that such board erred in finding him physically fit for military service because of a [253]*253previous history of rheumatic fever; that he was formally inducted into the United States Army about July 25, 1968 and was thereafter transported to the Fort Jackson Military Reservation for training whereupon it soon developed that the after effects from his seige of rheumatic fever rendered him physically unable to maintain his place with fellow trainees and that such training “would have severe and possibly fatal effects upon him;” further that petitioner and her son have limited formal education and experience great difficulty in communicating effectively in the English language and consequently failed to understand their right of appeal to the selective service board for reclassification because of his physical disability; that they relied upon the opinion of their family physician who advised that Hector Laino would not be drafted because of his physical disability and medical history. The petition further alleges that during the year 1962 Hector Laino was stricken with rheumatic fever, that he developed an allergy to penicillin, and since that illness has been continuously under medication on a twice daily basis “to prevent a fatal recurrence of the disease;” that petitioner is informed by competent medical authority that Gantrisin, the sulphur drug which he has been and is now taking is effective in a civilian environment but that such medication is not effective against “a sulfonamide-resistent strain of Beta-Hemolytic Streptococci Bacteria,” which has emerged in personnel of the United States Army. Petitioner further contends that through her attorney she applied for a medical review board on behalf of her son which has been refused; and that therefore she and her attorney have exhausted all their administrative procedures; that her son is presently confined to the stockade at Fort Jackson without receiving the necessary amount of medication,, that he is physically unable to meet the physical exertions necessary to his training as an army inductee, and that she is informed and believes that if “action is not immediately taken that irreparable physical harm may be caused petitioner’s son, and that his very life is thereby placed in jeopardy without due process of law.” Petitioner prays that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus against the respondents herein for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the restraint and detention of petitioner’s son, and for such other and further relief as may be proper in the premises.

Petitioner’s petition is supported by attached affidavits of herself and her attorney, Frank Giordani, which generally substantiate and support the allegations of her petition.

Pursuant to receipt and consideration of petitioner’s petition the court issued its order to show cause to respondents which was filed September 23, 1968 requiring them within fifteen days after service upon them to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted.

Under date of October 7,1968 respondents filed their return which had attached thereto a copy of all available medical records pertaining to Hector Laino, including the hospital records of The Jewish Hospital of New York where he was confined and treated during his 1962 seige of rheumatic fever, also a copy of Laino’s preinduction physical examination conducted November 28, 1967 at the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Station, Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, N. Y., and also all medical records concerning Laino since his arrival at Fort Jackson, including a report of medical examination of the medical board dated September 27, 1968 composed of Dr. Thomas S. Caras, Major, Medical Corps, United States Army, as president, and with Drs. Joel S. Koslow and Herbert M. Fischer, both Captains in the Medical Corps, U. S. Army, as the other two members. Also attached is a copy of the report of Dr. Warren Irvin, an outstanding cardiologist engaged in private practice in Columbia, S. C., who serves as a cardiology consultant for the United States Army.

Respondents’ return alleges that Hector Laino’s induction into the United [254]*254States Army by his local selective service board in Brooklyn was regular and proper in every respect, and pursuant to a proper armed forces physical examination in accordance with 32 C.F.R. 1628.10 which provides as follows:

“Every registrant, before he is ordered to report for induction, or ordered to perform civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest, shall be given an armed forces physical examination under the provisions of this part, except that a registrant who is delinquent and a registrant who has volunteered for induction may be ordered to report for induction without being given an armed forces physical examination.”

The return further alleges that Laino was found medically qualified for induction, and that thereafter he was ordered by his local board to report for military service, and was inducted in accordance with 32 C.F.R. 1631.7 which provides as follows:

“Each local board, upon receiving a Notice of Call on Local Board (SSS Form No. 201) from the State Director of Selective Service (1) for a specified number of men to be delivered for induction or (2) for a specified number of men in a medical, dental, or allied specialist category to be delivered for induction, shall select and order to report for induction the number of men required to fill the call from among its registrants who have been classified in Class I-A and Class I-A-0 and have been found acceptable for service in the Armed Forces * * * ”

Respondents’ return acknowledges that Laino had an attack of rheumatic fever during 1962, and that the Army was well aware of this previous history at the time of his pre-induction physical examination and after his military service began. It further alleges that the medical records incorporated in the return show conclusively that Laino has no residual heart disease and is fully qualified for military service. It is further alleged that his service in the army is not calculated to expose him unduly to any streptococcal infections and rheumatic fever, that he will be continued on the Gantricin prophylaxis while he remains in the service, and that he is actually better off while he remains in the service because of the Army’s stringent control and guard against such infections. The return further asserts that a medical board has been convened and that Laino has been examined by an Army rheumatologist and Army cardiologist as well as by Dr.

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

Related

Haggerty v. Selective Service System, Local Board No. 15
325 F. Supp. 69 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
United States ex rel. Signorelli v. Malleck
314 F. Supp. 153 (D. Connecticut, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 F. Supp. 252, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laino-v-secretary-of-defense-scd-1968.