(H.R. 698 follows:) [H.R. 698, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to increase the benefits provided thereunder for paraplegics Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 3 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Where the disabled employee is a paraplegic, his basic compensation for total disability shall not be less than $150 a month." SEC. 2. Subsection (b) of section 5 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is amended (1) by striking out "shall be 66% per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "shall, subject to the limitation contained in the next sentence, be 66% per centum" and (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Where the injury causes the employee to be a paraplegic, the basic compensation payable to the employee for such disability shall not be less than $150 a month." SEC. 3. Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 6 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Where the employee is a paraplegic, the additional sum payable under this paragraph shall be $100 a month.' SEC. 4. Section 40 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(i) The term 'paraplegic' means an individual the lower half of whose body is paralyzed on both sides by reason of an injury to the spine.' SEC. 5. Clause (a) of the second proviso of the Act of February 15, 1934, as amended (5 U.S.C., sec. 796), is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the following: ", except that in the case of a paraplegic (as defined in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act), the monthly compensation shall be $150, exclusive of medical costs". SEC. 6. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to compensation paid for months beginning more than sixty days after the enactment of this Act. Mr. MCCAULEY. No, sir. We filed a report with the committee on this bill H.R. 698. The report is dated February 18, 1959. We pointed out the defects as we saw them in the proposal. We took the position that the compensation act was based on the principle of equal treatment for all employees similarly situated and pointed out that this dealt with a very small category of cases. It is about as narrow as anything could be drawn, in my opinion. It refers to paraplegics and then defines the term as meaning an individual the lower half of whose body is paralyzed on both sides by reason of an injury to the spine. I have a hard time trying to understand why an injury to the spine causing paralysis of the lower extremities would be any different than injury to the brain that might cause the same kind of end result or any other type of injury that might have a similar effect. Mr. WIER. Let me ask you, when you point that out insofar as the individual's right to compensation and eligibility, what difference would it make whether the paralyzation was from either the spine or the brain. Mr. MCCAULEY. It would make no difference. Mr. WIER. Evidently this individual was denied compensation because of the spinal paralyzation rather than the brain paralyzation. Mr. MCCAULEY. This proposes a higher scale of benefits for that type of injury and another type of injury that might have the same effect so far as capacity for work is concerned. Mr. WIER. Then would it be your opinion that this individual referred to in this bill or similar individuals are now eligible for benefits, but this bill merely raises the benefits? Mr. MCCAULEY. That would seem the purpose of the bill because it provides that the compensation shall not be less than $150 a month. Well, I don't know what the case is. I don't know what the present compensation rate is, but presumably it is something less than $150. Otherwise the bill would be pointless. Mr. WIER. I was going to ask you the question. What is the differential? Mr. MCCAULEY. Our payment would be based on the wage of the individual at the time of his injury. If he were drawing a wage of $200 a month and has dependents his compensation rate would be $150 a month. But if his rate was $150 a month and the rate of pay was $150 a month his compensation with dependents would be $112.50 a month, so I don't know what this case involves. Mr. WIER. Isn't that type of setup rather subject to criticism? Taking myself, for example, as an individual on my salary as a Member of Congress and some fellow who was on a low salary and who got paralyzation from falling off a construction job, at a very minor salary, between the two of us there would be a great variance in benefits there. Mr. MCCAULEY. Compensation is universally based on the wage of the injured person. Mr. WIER. I understand that is State law, too. Mr. MCCAULEY. All of them, without exception. Mr. WIER. There is a minimum. Mr. MCCAULEY. They all provide a minimum. Mr. WIER. Is your $150 a minimum? Mr. MCCAULEY. Our present minimum is $112.50 a month. Mr. MCCAULEY. $112.50 a month. Mr. WIER. That is what I was trying to get, the difference between $112 you pay him now and $150 which at least the author thinks they ought to get. Mr. MCCAULEY. That applies unless the man's wage was less than $150, in which event he draws his full wage. Mr. WIER. Yes. Mr. MCCAULEY. This would be discriminatory, it seems to me, and I don't see why one would be justified in paying a higher rate for permanent total disability due to one cause than he would for another cause, because the result is the same. Mr. WIER. Let us go back to 1949 when we gave you a good law. We made at least a good increase 10 years ago in all of your compensation cases. Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WIER. As between $112, which I think is pretty miserable for a paralyzed person, and $150 there is a difference. Mr. MCCAULEY. That is correct. Mr. WIER. We did very well on the compensation bill. We extended coverage. We increased the benefits. They had not been increased in 1949 for about 25 years. Mr. MCCAULEY. That is correct, sir. Mr. WIER. We made a good bill out of it. But there is still a gap here. Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, I take it your point is that if we are going to increase the minimum benefits we should not discriminate against those who are totally disabled for some reason other than injury to the spine, brain or whatever else, but just raise the minimum payments fairly and indiscriminately across the line. This Mr. MCCAULEY. That is right. I can't see any reason for distinguishing this case from other types of total disability. even distinguishes between types of paralysis. In other words, if a man had paralysis to the lower limbs as a result of injury to the brain he would not benefit by this. Mr. WIER. He struck out the last sentence dealing with spine and asked for increase in paraplegics. Mr. MCCAULEY. It should deal with the whole problem. If the minimum should be raised it should be raised for everybody not one type of case. There should be equality of treatment on all the persons that are similarly situated. Mr. WIER. Is this the only one dealing with this type of case, Mr. McCauley, that you have? Mr. MCCAULEY. I didn't get your question. Mr. WIER. Is this the only one of the cases dealing with total disability that we have here? Mr. MCCAULEY. I believe it is, yes, sir. Mr. WIER. Did you say you had a report? Wait a minute. Keep it in the record. I want to get back to a statement you made a minute ago. You said you had reports on these bills. Mr. MCCAULEY. A report was filed on this bill, yes, sir. Mr. WIER. To my committee? Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WIER. Have you got those reports, Mrs. Bosone? Mrs. BOSONE. Yes, there is a report. I have a copy by James T. O'Connell in my file. The same report is filed in the main committee. Mr. MCCAULEY. You have a report on that? Mr. WIER. I as chairman here didn't know there was any report here. I was wondering what my colleague here was driving at a minute ago, if there weren't reports along with these bills. I think you mentioned it to me but I have not taken the time to review the reports. Mrs. BOSONE. I went through the files in the committee room to see if there are reports. Mr. WIER. How old are those reports? Mrs. BOSONE. This one is February 18, 1959. Mr. WIER. That is last year. We will get hold of those reports. I am glad we have them, Mr. McCauley. Mr. MCCAULEY. It is a bill introduced this session. Mr. WIER. I will tell Mr. Frelinghuysen there are reports here from your Department. I don't want your Department being charged with neglect. Mr. MILLER. There are reports on some of them on those requested. Mr. WIER. Why not reports on all of them? Mr. MILLER. We have not been asked. Mr. MCCAULEY. Have not received a request from the committee. Mr. WIER. I cannot make the request. If the committee wants them I would entertain a motion to have reports on each bill. We will pass on, then. We will hear Mr. Baldwin when he appears before our committee, Mr. McCauley. Mr. MCCAULEY. These next two bills are identical, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 715 and H.R. 811. (H.R. 715 and H.R. 811 follow:) [H.R. 715, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To permit retired personnel of the uniformed services to receive benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act without relinquishing their retirement pay Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 757) is amended by striking out "for service in the Army or Navy" and inserting retired pay, retirement pay, retainer pay, or equivalent pay, for service in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard". [H.R. 811, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To permit retired personnel of the uniformed services to receive benefits under the Federal Em ployees' Compensation Act without relinquishing their retirement pay Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 757) is amended by striking out "for service in the Army or Navy" and inserting "retired pay, retirement pay, retainer pay, or equivalent pay, for service in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard". Mr. WIER. Any comment? Any report? I mean is there a report on them? Mr. MCCAULEY. No report has been filed on this. The Department has been reviewing it. I don't believe it has determined what position it will finally take on it. It had favored a similar proposal to this several years back. It deals with a situation that arises in a few cases where persons who are retired from the military service and enter employment as civilians in the service of the Federal Government suffer an injury while engaged in their civilian employment which would entitle them to benefits under the compensation act, have been unable to receive compensation benefits because of the receipt of retired or retainer pay. This question was presented to the Comptroller General of the United States some years back and he ruled that they were precluded from drawing pay, drawing retirement pay or retainer pay, concurrently with compensation benefits. And it does create an inequity because they are drawing their retirement pay and civilian salary and if they lose the salary because of disability resulting from an injury resulting from the performance of duty, they are required to make an election. There were some recent cases before the Court of Claims in which the court took a different view. Whether that will solve the problem or not, I am not prepared to state at this moment. But if it doesn't then some legislation would be necessary to take care of this. Mr. MILLER. May I say something here? Mr. MCCAULEY. Surely. Mr. MILLER. It would seem that if a retired military man is permitted to take a civilian job and earn salary at that under the law then if he is injured he ought to be allowed to get the compensation during the period of disability which everybody else would get during that period. That in substance is what the Court of Claims held in the Mulholland case. He said that these persons who get military retainer pay, that they are not getting something for nothing, they may be called back into the service. Therefore, they are in substance giving something for the retainer pay that they get. Therefore, when they are injured as civil employees they are allowed to get compensation during that period and they are not getting dual compensation without rendering service for the other amount that they are getting because they are giving something for it. That is what they said in the Mulholland case. So I think the decision in the Mulholland case will substantially take care of this situation. We have rendered an opinion to the eeffect that these persons who are getting retainer pay and who are also engaged in civil employment, when they are injured as civil employees they can get both because they are not getting dual compensation on those situations. Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, would this be applied retroactively? Mr. MILLER. Well, for many years the Bureau has been following the Comptroller General's decision which was contrary and it was only recently that the Court of Claims came down with this other decision. So I don't think that the Bureau has gone back now, with all the old cases that have been closed, and has attempted to change them. I think future cases they will handle that way but not cases which are closed. Mr. GOODELL. There has not been any date set at this point from which you will allow this type of claim. Mr. MILLER. From the date that we rendered an opinion, I think from that date forward, I think they will handle those cases according to the opinion. Mr. GOODELL. You have rendered that opinion? Mr. MCCAULEY. Yes. We are paying compensation and we are leaving it up to the branch of the armed services that is paying the other benefit to decide whether they will pay or not. As far as we are concerned, we are paying. Mr. WIER. Does that mean that there is not any need for this legislation? Mr. MILLER. I would not say that because as Mr. McCauley says, although the Bureau pays the amount under their act the other services might withhold what the man has coming from them. In other words, they don't care what we do. They hold it up. I understand in some of these situations where the man gets compensation from us they hold up the benefit that the man would have as a military personnel while he is getting compensation from us. Mr. GOODELL. Is this a recent decision? Mr. MILLER. Court of Claims? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Mr. MILLER. Within the last year or so. I think about a year or two ago. Mr. GOODELL. Are you aware of any circumstances where the military has held up payments? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Mr. GOODELL. That you have seen? Mr. MILLER. I understand in one of the cases we had notwithstanding we decided to pay them they said they were going to hold up what he had coming from them. |