letter from the compensation office here from Washington, D.C., I should go to U.S. Marine Hospital to fill it out the form with the doctor. I go to the doctor. He said, "You go to the 67 Hudson Street because you had your treatment there." Sixty-seven Hudson Street, the Dr. Paley said to me, "You go back." I said, "Sir, I was there already. Will you please mark it down with the paper, the report coming from here because if I want a claim, mark it down I was here, the U.S. Marine Hospital should fill it out the form." When I went to the medical director to fill it out the form you should see that. He read the statement what Dr. Paley said and he was in Staten Island. And he is a medical director and he said to me, "I am above him now. He giving me the order? You go back to him." Now I like a ball. You see that. I don't get a penny compensation from that, even that $85 which I am supposed to have while I am totally disabled. It is unbelievable what is going on. And not only that. How could I live? How could I exist? And now I get treatment. Now many times I went there, let us say treatment, naturally they know the doctors, they made a mistake. Even when Í said I have infection there. They said, "You too smart." I have a medical officer of charge writing after 5 months the operation, the pus coming out after that. And I still don't get compensation because between two doctors friction I don't get the nothing. He said he fill it out. This one says "No." I am between them. I think in the seventh I was in the executive office of the Federal Civil Defense. They follow the compensation office. They were all there in the Labor Department and what they say to me, you should see that. I can't explain what they say. "Maybe you are the only one." Was 225 made the claim. It don't say in just those words, "You are the only one, it doesn't pay to bother with you." I am not here or there. Now I am totally disabled and I don't get nothing Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman Mr. WIER. Yes? Mr. O'HARA. As I understand, the present operating national defense employees are not covered. Mr. WIER. Correct. Mr. O'HARA. Evidently, the compensation which he did receive at one time was for total permanent disability for a non-serviceconnected injury of a veteran. Were you ever in the armed services? Mr. NESTOR. No, at that time they have not got city, they have not got State, so when I was injured the city said, "We have no obligation. You go to the Federal." State said, "Go to the Federal, because they have their responsibilities." They don't deny it. But see now, the compensation office they say just the same as the hospital, "You don't belong here." They say, "You don't belong here." Where am I now? How can I live? Mr. O'HARA. Were you ever in the Armed Forces of the United States? Mr. NESTOR. No. Mr. GOODELL. What were you doing when you were injured? Mr. NESTOR. I was like a policeman on the street and was nighttime about 11:30. I find a woman on the street. To me was completely dead, was no life or sign of life. I lift her up and pull on the bench there, it was a small park there. Naturally, I strained myself and that time get the hernia. Mr. GOODELL. Is this in New York; who hired you? Mr. NESTOR. It is Federal Civil Defense. Federal Civil Defense obligation. Mr. GOODELL. I do not say whose obligation. Who actually hired you, did the hiring of you, and told you to be there? Mr. NESTOR. I have here something here-It is member of the Mr. GOODELL. Was it the police department or fire department of New York? Mr. NESTOR. Belongs to the police jurisdiction but responsible to the Federal Government. Mr. GOODELL. Well, the police department hired you and put you there? Mr. NESTOR. Well, see Mr. GOODELL. Or was it somebody in the police department who has designation of civil defense? Mr. NESTOR. Actually it was an emergency. How to explain to you? You see, it was the U.S. defense Mr. WIER. Civil defense. Mr. O'HARA. Civil Defense Administrator. Mr. NESTOR. Part of it, like let us say now they have a Navy, Army, all belong to the U.S. defense. That time they belong to the civil defense, their category. Mr. GOODELL. I do not exactly understand. Mr. O'HARA. Evidently he was under the Civil Defense Division of New York. They have these practice alerts. Mr. GOODELL. You understand, Mr. Nestor, that this is not something that you cannot get while everybody else does. No civil defense employees are now covered under compensation. Yes, it is no civil defense, but this is a Federal Mr. O'HARA. That is something we are considering and that is why we wanted to hear your testimony, but nobody else in your category now gets this and if the rest of them do you will. Mr. WIER. It is getting late and we will have to adjourn. The subcommittee is recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (The following statements were submitted for the record:) STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. LARSON, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION MR. CHAIRMAN: My name is Charles R. Larson. I am president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. We have a membership of 36,625 and represent the rural letter carriers of the Nation. This association is extremely interested in the legislation before your committee to liberalize various provisions of the present Compensation Act which has not been amended since 1949. We wish to express our thanks and appreciation to those Members of the House who have introduced bills to provide for various liberalizing amendments, and to yourself, Mr. Chairman, for introducing H.R. 10705, an omnibus bill for the same purpose. My testimony will be on H.R. 10705. The amendment proposed for section 5, subsection (a), is most desirable. Injuries or accidents have resulted in the loss, or the loss of the use of a member or members of the body which were determined to be not compensable under the present act due to the fact that the injury sustained was not to the member or members subsequently affected from that injury. Medical evidence already on file with the Bureau of Compensation should disclose that such losses are nonetheless directly attributable to the original injury, and action certainly is merited to amend the act to extend protection to the employee in these cases. We also strongly endorse the provision to make payment of compensation for scheduled disabilities irrespective of whether or not the employee may be on the civil service retirement rolls prior to the completion of such payments. We wholeheartedly support the proposed amendment to section 6, subsection (c), which would increase the minimum rate of compensation for disability to not less than $225 per month. The increased costs of living over the years since the present minimum of $112.50 was set is deemed sufficient evidence that the minimum should be increased. We also support the proposed amendment to section 9(a) which would establish liability under the Compensation Act to furnish such medical services, appliances, and supplies as needed after an employee has been placed on the civil service retirement rolls. We endorse the proposed amendment to section 10 (K) which would improve the minimum amount payable to survivors in the event of death. We also endorse the amendment to increase the burial benefit provided for in section 11 to provide payment of $800. The proposed amendment to section 12(b) would not apply to rural carriers, and we therefore have no comment. We endorse the proposed amendment to section 13 (b) which would clarify and improve determination of wage-earning capacity for employees eligible for compensation. In our experience in dealing with the Compensation Act, we have no knowledge of any officer or employee knowingly or willfully falsifying records or concealing material facts in relation to the injury or death of a person compensable under the act. For this reason, we have no basis for endorsing this proposed amendment to section 24. We would support it if evidence presented before the committee would disclose that such punitive penalties are necessary or desirable to assure full protection for persons compensable under the act. We recommend amendment to section 40 (f) in order to assure the employees compensable under the act will benefit by a computation based on the monthly pay of the employe as of time disability begins or recurs, whichever is greater. We endorse the principle of providing preference in reemployment. The exact language to provide this benefit should be carefully analyzed, however, due to the difficult personnel problems which would arise in those areas or installations where existing complement of personnel or existing vacancies would not permit, or make impractical, the application of preference provided. We suggest deleting lines 4 through 6 on page 6 of H.R. 10705 relative to reemployment and inserting language to prohibit involuntary separation from the rolls while a person is being compensated under the act; and to further provide that personnel complements shall be disregarded to the extent that they may be increased in any agency or department due to carrying persons on the rolls who are on compensation. We endorse the principle of providing preference for employment to unremarried widows and ask careful review by the committee of the proposed amendment set forth in the bill as section 43 (d). Compensation payments to those presently receiving benefits should be increased on an equitable basis. The increase proposed in H.R. 10705 is reasonable and based on a sound approach as related to salary increases which have been enacted during past years. We do not, however, endorse this formula to the exclusion of any other, which would provide a similar increase or more equitable formula. In closing, may I express the gratitude of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association for the opportunity to present our views and recommendations before this committee. We trust that the committee may be able to report H.R. 10705 in the near future in order to liberalize the present Compensation Act. STATEMENT OF MAURICE M. WITHERSPOON, CAPTAIN (CHC) USN (RETIRED), MASONIC WAR VETERANS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Capt. Maurice M. Witherspoon, of New York, supporting the H.R. 3719 bill. This bill was introduced for the purpose of helping those unfortunate civil defense volunteers during World War II who were killed or suffered and sustained serious and permanent physical disabilities while in the course of and during the performance of their duties as civil defense workers. At present, delay of justice for 17 years is the equivalent of the denial of justice. It is a harsh infringement of the law of the land. Federal civil defense-like our military forces were called upon to share fully in the defense of our country when attacked by the enemy in 1941-it is the valid obligation of the Federal Government in the same manner as provided in the U.S. Constitution for common defense of the Nation. They are now subject to a numerous penalty under the existing "CWBP" imposed upon them repudiates and negates almost every article in the declaration of human rights. It denies the right to life, liberty, and security-security and $85 per month for totally disabled, the maximum benefit which is preposterous and pernicious. President Eisenhower declared: "Our civil defense program is also a key element in the protection of our country." They acted with courage in those dangerous times and seek no special favor in view of their value to the Nation and their fatality. Morally they certainly are entitled to compensation on the modest basis which was proposed in H.R. 3719. That is the least a very great nation can do for dedicated injured or dead Americans. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 24, 1960.) AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1960 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND COMPENSATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 304, New House Office Building, Hon. Roy W. Wier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Wier, Zelenko, and O'Hara. Mr. WIER. We will now officially open the meeting. I believe you wished to make a brief statement this morning, Mr. Hallbeck. STATEMENT OF E. C. HALLBECK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS Mr. HALLBECK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am E. C. Hallbeck, legislative representative of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks. I want to enter a general endorsement of the legislation, with particular reference to the section dealing with recurrence of injuries, which in my judgment is badly in need of change at this time. And I will ask permission to file a supplementary statement after the hearing may be concluded. Mr. WIER. Certainly. It will be inserted in the record. STATEMENT OF E. C. HALLBECK, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION Chairman Wier and members of the subcommittee, for the purpose of the record I am E. C. Hallbeck, legislative director of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks. The organization I represent maintains Washington headquarters in its own building at 817 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. At the outset I want to express my thanks to you, Mr. Wier, for the introduction of H.R. 10705, and to the members of the subcommittee for their prompt consideration of this and other measures designed to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended. As chairman of the legislative committee of the Government employees' council, AFL-CIO, I have participated in many discussions with reference to the need for amendments to the Compensation for Injury Act and I am happy to state that, in my judgment, the bill H.R. 10705, very adequately sets forth the most necessary amendments to the act. Section 101 of the bill would amend the act so as to provide benefits for the loss of the use of a member or members of the 187 |