similar adjustments included in the broad revision of the law in 1949, but none has been provided since. This fact is evidence that there is urgent need for such revision now.

Ältogether, Mr. Chairman, these amendments to the Employees' Compensation Act are equitable and beneficial to the employee who may be injured and, because of incapacity, unable to continue his work. We believe they should be enacted at an early date. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to state our views on this bill.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Zelenko?

Mr. ZELENKO. I am very happy that your association finds itself in agreement with the provisions of this act. Our distinguished chairman introduced this much needed legislation.

However, I want to make sure there are no restrictions on the part of injured employees to get what I consider their due. I wonder, Mr. Campbell, if you could help me. Do you have a copy of the bill there with you?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZELENKO. I am going to read this provision to you and I want you to be able to tell me how it would work out practically. I just do not understand it and I do not want, if this becomes law, to have somebody to try to interpret it and then perhaps decided against an injured employee. It says:

Provided, That in cases where an injury to any part of the nervous system or the body results in the loss, or the loss of the use of another member, the benefits provided for scheduled disabilities shall apply to the members suffering the loss, or the loss of use of.

Now what would that mean? What does that change? What does that open up? Do you see what I mean?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Let us take the case of a man who has a nerve injury in the arm or shoulder that leads to the loss of use of his right hand. Well, under the present law there is no compensation payable. Mr. ZELENKO. For what?

Mr. CAMPBELL. For the loss of use of this hand.

Mr. ZELENKO. Does he receive compensation for his nerve injury? Mr. CAMPBELL. No.

Mr. ZELENKO. Do you mean to tell me that this law is so antiquated, medically speaking, that up to this point injuries to the nervous system have not been recognized as compensable?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Apparently that is the case, Mr. Zelenko.

Mr. ZELENKO. It seems very strange to me. Outside of my congressional duties I have lectured in law schools and taught medical jurisprudence and injury law and it has long been recognized outside and in State compensation laws and they do, I think you know, give compensations for injuries to the nervous system. Now, I would like if possible-I am in favor of this legislation but as I indicated before I would like, if possible, that it not be interpreted restrictively. Now, when it says injury to the nervous system, I would not-I would like language in here that would be broader so that injury to the nervous system is not restricted to physical injury to a nerve. Now, just for example, not to indicate how much I know about it because I do not know too much about medicine except for legally, we have an injury known as a conversion hysteria. That is a term that the

51706-60- -12

average layman would never run across and yet in law practice I have run across it.

A conversion hysteria-I hope there are no doctore here to correct me, but I think I am pretty well solid-a man is injured, let us say he gets an injury to one of his ligaments of the back, somewhere along the spine and he develops what the doctors call a functional disorder. The back heals up but then he actually feels pain in the back and somewhere along the midline of the body and this thing has happened, an invisible thing, right down the midline of his body, they call it a conversion hysteria, in the right side of his body you may stick pins in and he feels nothing, yet he has no physical injury, this is recognized medically. Does the nervous system in this bill mean actual physical nerve impairment or should we not make the language broad enough so if there is an actual, I will not call it psychological, but an actual functional disturbance should not that be included? Doctors may examine a man with a conversion hysteria, a railroader for instance, I have had these situations, nothing physically wrong with him and I have seen pins stuck into the right side of his body all the way from the head down and he does not feel a thing and the other side works properly. Nothing actually physically wrong and he experiences actual pain. So I would think without belaboring the point and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps just in the interests of being clear, that I would like some kind of a definition of injury to any part of the functional system because I have discussed the injury to the nervous system, but I do not want it restricted to a physical, actual physical disability. Do you see? I think it would be well to consider that because you will find those injuries compensable in the various States, outside of Government, in private industry. It is recognized by the medical profession and they are injuries.

A person may not be able to go to work. Why is this little example I gave you of this conversion hysteria important? You may say, Well, the man can move his hand. But situations like that lead to fatal injuries. There have been instances where a person who has lost his sensations is burned without knowing it. Third degree burns, as serious as possible over a large area of his body and he does not feel it. That is why I would say that perhaps, I would not want to hold this legislation, we might try to get medical interpretation, let us say that you people have run across to see whether injury to the nervous system as such would include not only actual physical injury but the medical consequences of nerve injury without apparent physical aspects. Do you see what I mean? It is very important to me and I know it would be to the injured person.

Mr. WIER. Before you leave this let me ask you a question: What about the men or women, who in the course of their employment receive a nerve impairment which leaves a numbness in some part of the body, inactive numbness; presuming that they continue to work in their general normal way before they discover that they have no feelingbut they could continue to work-how would they sustain compensation? On the basis of a doctor's affidavit?

Mr. ZELENKO. Yes, medically only.

Now you see it may be that a person has sustained a nerve injury which is not physically incapacitating. I have given you an example

where a person might work, have no feeling and be put back in a job which might endanger his or her life such as coming up against a burning or overheated object or perhaps something involving electricity but I would say that would be based on the medical certificate, the medical examination. My questions went to whether somebody interpreting this section would say, well, they actually have to see a severed nerve. Do you see what I mean?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I see.

Mr. ZELENKO. Now injuries to the nervous system ofttimes are greater without actual physical aspects than they are with them, not that I want to open a Pandora's box about a person who says he does not feel well when he is. We are talking about disabilities recognized under State law.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And which would be demonstrable in one way or another.

Mr. ZELENKO. That is right, medically demonstrable but I do not want a restriction in the statute. It may be we will, when the committee reports, indicate what we mean so somebody later can interpret it. I do not want it interpreted that when somebody says injuries to the nervous system we have to have a dead nerve or cut nerve.

Coming down to another section, and it deals with punishmentWhoever being an officer or employee of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device * * * and that deals with making false application, filing false papers. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. ZELENKO. I would like to call your attention to this fact and I do not know whether it was considered: There is already something in our Penal Code, I do not have the exact number with me, which states that anybody filing any false document with the Government is guilty of a crime. I do not know whether this would be redundant or not. We also have a section that says if somebody prevents anybody from filing a statement. If somebody wants to make a claim and the supervisor says, "Don't file the claim." Is that what you are alluding to?

Mr. PRATER. I think so.

Mr. ZELENKO. I can see that. I would like to check that, I would like to see whether this statement that states anybody filing a false claim is not already covered under the Penal Statute. That is all inclusive. Anybody who files a false document is already guilty of a crime. That would be covered. The other part I do not think is covered, that is this example of a supervisor telling an employee, "Do not file a claim." That happens many times where they want a good safety record in the department.

A man may come in with a broken leg and they say, "Do not file. You will ruin our record."

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right.

Mr. WIER. Mr. O'Hara, do you have any questions? Mr. Campbell has confined himself to H.R. 10705.

Mr. O'HARA. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Goodell?

Mr. GOODELL. No; I have none, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Campbell, we appreciate you and your counsel coming here. We appreciate your contribution to making a better com

pensation law for the Government employees. Your contribution will no doubt give us some enlightenment as to how to handle this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZELENKO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Campbell with your permission if you will possibly file the information which you possibly can on these two questions as soon as you possibly can?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; we would be very glad to do it.

Mr. WIER. We will now hear from the next witness. Will you identify yourself for the reporter?

STATEMENT OF C. L. DORSON, PRESIDENT OF THE RETIREMENT FEDERATION OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Mr. DORSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee on Safety and Compensation, my name is C. L. Dorson. I am president of the Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the U.S. Government, an organization of approximately 95,000 members, most of whom are presently employees of the Department of Defense.

We should like to discuss with you the proposed amendments to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Since H.R. 10705 seems to embody most of the purposes of the various bills before you, and for ease of understanding, my remarks will be addressed to the Chairman's bill.

Mr. WIER. For the record let me ask you this: This committee has heard some of the problems dealing with military in connection with the Federal employees, some covered, some not covered. Are you going to discuss this phase?

Mr. DORSON. No, generally on H.R. 10705, the overall bill, and not to review the entire thing but to call your attention to some amendments which we think would be justified.

Mr. WIER. Thank you.

Mr. DORSON. The amendments proposed by H.R. 10705, to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, are much needed and we fully endorse the principles contained therein. There are, however, some amendments to the bill which we believe to be justified and in which we ask your concurrence.

The first of these amendments concerns section 102, title I, of the bill. We suggest that the figures $525, appearing on line 16, page 2, be changed to $640. This relates, as you know, to the maximum dollar amount of compensation payable.

There are several reasons why we believe such an amendment to be justified. First, it appears that if the floor is to be raised, and we certainly believe that it should be, then the ceiling should be raised by at least a like amount for purposes of equity. Further, such an increase would maintain the dollar value of the ceiling at about the same salary level as in the 1949 Act. The increasing number of Federal employees in this salary level and above engaging in hazardous experimental work would emphasize the importance of maintaining the ceiling at an equitable level.

It might also be well to point out that, if the maximum benefit is not increased, employees injured after the effective date of the bill

could receive a lesser benefit than those whose compensation is increased under title II, section 201.

The next amendment concerns section 105, title I, of the bill. We suggest that the period after $300, on line 5, page 3, be stricken and that the words "and by striking out '$525' and substituting '$640'." be added.

The reasons for the suggestion of this amendment are the same as those for the suggested amendment to section 102.

The next amendment concerns a matter which has been the cause of some difficulty in our local chapters. It relates to the interpretation and application of the conflict-of-interest provisions of the United States Code. Our local officers and members have been hampered by legal interpretations which seek to prevent their assistance to fellow employees in claiming benefits provided by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act for their protection. They have been advised that section 109 of the U.S. Criminal Code, title 283, applies to compensation claims as well as to other claims against the Federal Govern

ment.

We do not believe, nor do many responsible administrative officers of the Federal Government with whom we have discussed the matter, that the conflict-of-interest provisions of the code were ever intended to apply in such cases. However, we are faced with adverse determinations and to test them in the courts could be most unpleasant for the individual involved. Meanwhile, this "sword of Damocles" hangs over the heads of Federal employees whose only desire in such matters is to see justice done.

Mr. ZELENKO. May I interrupt you, sir, and just ask you whether the chairman's permission to give us a practical example of what you are talking about, how this would represent a conflict of interest, as you stated, in the Penal Code?

Mr. DORSON. I do not know that it really would. I do not believe that it does.

Mr. ZELENKO. You say it is an adverse interpretation?

Mr. DORSON. Some of our people have been so advised by the legal officers in the districts in which they work.

Mr. ZELENKO. How would it arise? I do not understand.

Mr. DORSON. It would arise from the officers or members of one of our local chapters assisting a Federal employee in determining his rights and filing his claim for compensation when he had been injured. I do not know.

Mr. ZELENKO. Does he receive reimbursement for that?

Mr. DORSON. No, he would normally not receive any reimbursement. The officers of our chapter are not salaried.

Mr. ZELENKO. How would the conflict occur? Because he himself is receiving disability or pension from the Government in some way? He is getting money from the Government now.

Mr. DORSON. He is a Federal employee and is being paid by the Federal Government and the legal officers believe that there is a conflict of interest which arises as a result of the fact that he is assisting a fellow employee in filing a claim against the Federal Government. Mr. ZELENKO. What does that assistance consist of? Just helping him to file the papers?