Merson v. United States

173 Ct. Cl. 92, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165, 1965 WL 8287
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 15, 1965
DocketNo. 5-60
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 173 Ct. Cl. 92 (Merson 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.

Bluebook
Merson v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 92, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165, 1965 WL 8287 (cc 1965).

Opinion

Durfee, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action to recover disability retirement pay. "Plaintiff served from 1928 to 1930 as an officer of the Regular Navy, and then in the Naval Reserve until August 30, 1939. He was again appointed to the Naval Reserve in 1942 -and served thereafter on extended active duty until March 29, 1946, when he was released to inactive duty as physically fit. Plaintiff now seeks retirement pay from that date on -the ground that he was at that time physically unfit to perform his duties and commission in the Naval service and .should have then been retired for service-connected -disability.

Following several attacks of malaria in 1943 at Guadalcanal during World War II and subsequent periods of hospitalization and treatment, plaintiff appears to have had residual symptoms. After an annual physical examination -on January 19, 1944, a Board of three Navy doctors found that plaintiff was “not physically qualified to perform all his duties at sea” and that he was “physically qualified for shore duty only.”

Three months later, on April 22, 1944, another Board of three Navy doctors found that plaintiff" was “fit to perform ¿active sea or foreign service” and “physically qualified for temporary promotion to Lt. Comdr.” One year later, in . April, 1945, he was operated on for hernia in a Navy hospital ¡and was discharged on May 21, 1945, as fit for duty. No significant defects other than hernia were noted.

Two months later a Navy examination on June 15, 1945, : noted “Facial tremors” and a “Generalized Abnormal EEG.” (Electroencephalogram). Ten days later on June .25,1945, plaintiff again entered a Navy hospital for á month’s period. Part of the admitting diagnosis was corrected from “No Disease (Headache) #2143” to “Asthenia Postinfective,” a general physical condition of disability. During this month’s period of hospitalization plaintiff underwent many physical examinations, consultations and tests. Sev[95]*95eral smear tests for malaria were recorded as “No parasites, found.” However the final diagnostic report concluded:

7~17-15: Neurological Consultation: Examination fails; to'reveal any'neurological findings that might shed any light upon the bases of his complaints. The feeling is that his EEGr abnormality antedated both the taking-of the experimental drug and his malaria, and probably is not related to either. Th[ese] complaints are not unlike those following minor head injury, ie. so called “post concussion syndrome”. If it were known whether the complaint is of organic origin we would have some-bases for deciding whether this patient’s symptoms are* psychogenic or organic. The Rorschach is not at all conclusive in this case. Regardless of any organic intra-cranial lesion he may have. He manifests .a definitely neurotic reaction and attitude, both of which merit tense-psychiatric attention.

Thereafter plaintiff was transferred to a Navy hospital in-Asheville, North Carolina, for further treatment and convalescence from July 1945, to January 1946. He received no particular treatment, other than rest. In October a Board of Medical Survey found that he was unfit for duty and recommended further treatment. In November the Board' of Medical Survey found that he was physically able to perform full duty, to which he was released on January 1,1946..

On January 1, plaintiff was found physically fit to perform active duty at sea or on foreign service and for temporary promotion to commander. On January 2, 1946, he-was examined by a Board of Medical Examiners for separation, if qualified, from service. The Board’s report noted the history of malaria from 1943 to 1945; found no symptoms off postinfective asthenia remaining and reported that plaintiff" was physically qualified for active duty. Plaintiff was there upon released from active duty incident to demobilization on March 29,1946. He then engaged in civilian employment until this was terminated for health reasons in October 1946. Thereupon, he applied for disability compensation with the-Veterans Administration for malarial attacks, hernia, headaches, nausea and recurrent anemia, lack of energy, etc., as-shown by Naval records. Upon examination by a neuro-psychiatrist of the Veterans Administration, head tremors-; [96]*96were noted under stress of questioning, no malaria or mental disorder was found, and a final diagnosis of “anxiety neurosis” was entered. On June 10, 1947, he was awarded ten percent disability compensation for “nervous condition following recurrent malaria.” On February 8,1948, he received another similar examination, with no substantial changes from the previous report except an abnormal amount of slow activity during hyperventilation, due possibly to “sequella of the previous encephalopathy” (which as we have previously noted, had been found connected with his cerebral malaria). It was recommended that the patient should remain under medical supervision.

Over a year later, plaintiff requested that Ids payments for disability be discontinued because Ms condition had not become aggravated, and he was able to earn a livelihood.

Subsequent to Ms release from active duty on March 29, 1946, plaintiff served on active duty for about two weeks officers’ training during 1949, 1961, 1952, 1955, and 1956. Plaintiff was found to be physically fit to perform the duties of Ms rank at the beginning of each period, and was found to be physically qualified for release from active duty at the end of each period. In his Officers Fitness Report dated September 20, 1949, plaintiff indicated that he was physically fit for sea duty.

From the time of Ms release from active duty in 1946, plaintiff continued in active private employment and practice of law for ten years until September 1957. In May of that year, he applied again to the Veterans Administration for disability compensation because of impairment of the central nervous system, resulting from wartime cerebral malaria, principally manifest by steadily worsening tremors (as previously noted in his naval records). Upon a neuro-psychiatric examination by the Veterans Administration which reviewed his previous medical record, Ms condition was diagnosed as “Anxiety Reaction, moderately severe to severe, associated with depressive features and tremors of the head and hand.” He was accordingly granted service-connected disability compensation at ten percent from March 30, 1946, to October 2, 1957, and rerated at fifty percent beginning October 3, 1957. The medical examiner reported [97]*97;that he could not state that there was a relationship between the existing tremors of the head and those reported on plaintiff’s naval record in 1945 because “the records are not too complete.” On February 1, 1960, plaintiff was rated by the Veterans Administration at 60% disability for Parkinsonism and 30% for anxiety reaction.

Prior to January 7, 1958, plaintiff filed an application for correction of his military records to show that he had been separated from the service by reason of physical disability and had been placed on the disability retired list. Plaintiff filed affidavits by two highly qualified doctors who reported a complete physical and neurological examination of plaintiff by them in 1957. Both expressed the opinion that plaintiff’s medical history in the Navy established that he had acute encephalitis and postencephalitic phenomena which rendered him unfit for duty when he was released from active naval service.

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

Related

Walls v. United States
582 F.3d 1358 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Morgan v. United States
11 Cl. Ct. 88 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Rutherford v. United States
573 F.2d 1224 (Court of Claims, 1978)
Flute v. United States
535 F.2d 624 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Kaeserman
207 Ct. Cl. 983 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Armstrong v. United States
205 Ct. Cl. 754 (Court of Claims, 1974)
Amato v. Chafee
337 F. Supp. 1214 (District of Columbia, 1972)
Finn v. United States
548 F.2d 340 (Court of Claims, 1971)
Martin Merson v. The United States
401 F.2d 184 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Merson v. United States
401 F.2d 184 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Francis G. Brown v. The United States
396 F.2d 989 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Brown v. United States
396 F.2d 989 (Court of Claims, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 Ct. Cl. 92, 1965 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165, 1965 WL 8287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merson-v-united-states-cc-1965.