that a demand has sprung up for the establishment of a special court to have jurisdiction of appeals from VA decisions?

We believe, to mention one major source of irritation, that, as pointed out in Resolution 300, adopted at our most recent national convention, there are far too many instances wherein the VA has resorted to opinion rather than the doctrine of clear and unmistakable error to sever service connections originally granted by boards of competent jurisdiction and perhaps continued through the years by other rating boards until some later group gets the case and changes the whole picture, for some reason or other.

It is our firm belief that a case must be strong indeed, from an evidentiary standpoint, for the VA Board of Veterans Appeals, composed of VA officials, to reverse and grant a claim that has been denied by the adjudication employees of a regional office. Human nature being what it is, and the desire to present a solid front being as strong as it is, can it be seriously contended that the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals invariably and always considers and determines appellate issues in a completely impartial and detached manner?

Even if our doubts in this matter were shown to be unwarranted the DAV would still earnestly contend that veterans should have the right under the law, if they care to exercise it, to go to court after a final decision is obtained from the Veterans' Administration. Why should veterans be made the exception when the general public in their dealings with other Government agencies have such recourse available in the event of dissatisfaction with administrative determinations?

How can such discrimination possibly be justified? We do not propose that the Federal courts be thrown open, everywhere, to such litigation for we can foresee that such action might result in a serious congestion of the dockets and would also result in a very considerable lack of uniformity in decisions rendered, all to the detriment of veterandom.

We propose that the solution lies in the establishment of a special Federal court having its permanent seat in Washington, D.C., and serviced by a staff well versed in veterans legislation, with such court having sole and exclusive jurisdiction over timely and proper appeals from decisions of the VA Board of Veterans Appeals.

In support of our position that the Congress should enact legislation to create a U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeals I have asked Mr. Cash of our claims service to present a statement for the record on the basis of his experience, and, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cash will now relate briefly some of the instances of VA determinations that might well serve as the basis for further review and possiblereversal before an impartial appellate court of justice.

Thank you.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Commander.
We will be happy now to hear from Mr. Cash.

Mr. CASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today, and to supplement the previous remarks in support of H.R. 9591, a bill to provide judicial review of decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals in veterans claims. I offer the following comments as the acting national director of the Claims and Rehabilitation Service of the Disabled American Veterans and from the viewpoint of our 132 recog

nized, accredited national service officers who, from day to day, actually prepare, present, and prosecute veterans claims from the many Veterans' Administration offices of original jurisdiction on up to the Board of Veterans Appeals.

The Disabled American Veterans is a service giving veterans organization. Our prinicple activity is the servicing of veterans claims which includes the review, the development, preparation, and perfection of evidence, the presentation of the claim before appropriate rating or review boards, and finally the prosecution of the claim through the filing of briefs and arguments to include appeals to higher rating agencies within the Veterans' Administration.

The official records of the Disabled American Veterans, which are furnished to the Congress, reveal that last year our 132 full-time accredited national service officers, stationed in every Veterans' Administration regional, district, and the central office, reviewed over 250,000 individual veterans claims and appeared before rating agencies in the claimants behalf in 126,930 of these cases. Of this number, the Disabled American Veterans prepared and presented 4,578 appeals to the Administrator through the Board of Veterans Appeals.

Every single appeal case was carefully reviewed by our appeals representatives and personally presented before the Board of Veterans Appeals. Of the 4,578 appealed cases handled, we obtained 647 favorable decisions and 2,828 denials. The remainder were either remanded for additional development or withdrawn or are pending decision. Under rule 19, of the rules of practice, we have requested reconsideration in less than 25 of the total of denied appeals and won reversal in a very small number of these cases.

Every appeal decision in the cases we represent is reviewed again very carefully for correctness. As the claimants' counsel, we want to assure ourselves that the final appeals decision is in conformity with the law and the facts in the case and in keeping with the broad liberal policy of the Veterans' Administration and the statutory and regulatory mandates that admonish the Veterans' Administration to resolve all reasonable doubt in the claimant's favor.

Therefore, the long and varied experience we of the Disabled American Veterans have had with the handling of individual cases, and our close observation of the final appeal decisions made in these cases, lead us to conclude that some form of judicial review should be established.

We feel that we can best demonstrate the need for judicial review by citing to you several example cases from among hundreds we maintain for the purposes of this legislation. The following 10 selected individual cases involve different questions at issue and will reveal the obvious inequities in the decisions when we review the facts and evidence in each case.

CASE NO. 1-SERVICE CONNECTION FOR STOMACH ULCER DISABILITY

The question is this case is whether the evidence of record and the application of Veterans' Administration law and regulation permits a finding of service connection for duodenal ulcer.

This veteran had active military service from April 18, 1941, to December 14, 1944, of which 29 months were spent in the Asiatic Pa

cific area with combat in the Papuan and New Guinea campaigns. Military clinical records reveal extensive treatment for malaria attacks and ankylostomiasis although there is no official clinical record of treatment for a stomach ulcer.

Following discharge from service, the veteran was rated 50 percent for malaria until July 1948. In view of the absence of service clinical records, the veteran submitted in evidence sworn affidavits from three service associates who served with him in the 32d Infantry Division. These affiants testified that the veteran received treatment for a stomach condition during service on a number of occasions and that he complained of having severe stomach pains and they recall the veteran receiving medication for a stomach disorder. There is of record a medical statement from a qualified physician, Dr. E. W. B., who has testified under oath that he first examined the veteran on January 2, 1945, and diagnosed a peptic ulcer and prescribed medication consisting of antacids, sedatives, and belladonna and further testified that the veteran continued to suffer from stomach complaints until surgery in 1953.

Dr. T. D. E. also testified that he treated the veteran in May 1947 for typical peptic ulcer, prescribing an ulcer regimen. It will be noted that the veteran submitted himself for definite medical treatment for stomach ulcer within 1 month following his discharge from military service.

Despite the above evidence which includes rigorous military service, testimony of several service associates who witnessed manifestations of stomach disability in service, and the testimony of reputable physicians who examined the veteran within a month following discharge and found typical peptic ulcer, the Board of Veterans Appeals, in an original decision of August 5, 1958, denied service connection for duodenal ulcer.

It is obvious that little or no weight has been accorded any of the evidence related above and certainly this evidence creates a reasonable doubt of service connection which has not been resolved in the veteran's favor.

CASE NO. 2-SERVICE CONNECTION FOR CAUSE OF DEATH

The question at issue in this case is whether the veteran's death resulted from service-connected causes so as to entitle his widow to death compensation.

The veteran died March 28, 1958, at the age of 39 from pneumonia and bronchogenic carcinoma. During his lifetime he was 70 percent disabled from gunshot wounds of the abdomen and back with abdominal adhesions, loss of right kidney and injury to the left pleural cavity with retained foreign bodies.

The veteran served from June 1944 to September 1945 and during combat in the Ardennes campaign in Europe, sustained a shell fragment wound of the back and side, resulting in removal of the right kidney and gunshot wound damage to muscular structure of the back. Following surgery for removal of the kidney, he developed pneumonia in the left lung, complicated by left hemothorax and left pleural effusion. Chest X-rays at the time revealed calcific tracheobronchial lymph nodes in the left lung root with obliteration of sinuses and thickened pleural tissue.

nized, accredited national service officers who, from day to day, actually prepare, present, and prosecute veterans claims from the many Veterans' Administration offices of original jurisdiction on up to the Board of Veterans Appeals.

The Disabled American Veterans is a service giving veterans organization. Our prinicple activity is the servicing of veterans claims which includes the review, the development, preparation, and perfection of evidence, the presentation of the claim before appropriate rating or review boards, and finally the prosecution of the claim through the filing of briefs and arguments to include appeals to higher rating agencies within the Veterans' Administration.

The official records of the Disabled American Veterans, which are furnished to the Congress, reveal that last year our 132 full-time accredited national service officers, stationed in every Veterans' Administration regional, district, and the central office, reviewed over 250,000 individual veterans claims and appeared before rating agencies in the claimants behalf in 126,930 of these cases. Of this number, the Disabled American Veterans prepared and presented 4,578 appeals to the Administrator through the Board of Veterans Appeals.

Every single appeal case was carefully reviewed by our appeals representatives and personally presented before the Board of Veterans Appeals. Of the 4,578 appealed cases handled, we obtained 647 favorable decisions and 2,828 denials. The remainder were either remanded for additional development or withdrawn or are pending decision. Under rule 19, of the rules of practice, we have requested reconsideration in less than 25 of the total of denied appeals and won reversal in a very small number of these cases.

Every appeal decision in the cases we represent is reviewed again very carefully for correctness. As the claimants' counsel, we want to assure ourselves that the final appeals decision is in conformity with the law and the facts in the case and in keeping with the broad liberal policy of the Veterans' Administration and the statutory and regulatory mandates that admonish the Veterans' Administration to resolve all reasonable doubt in the claimant's favor.

Therefore, the long and varied experience we of the Disabled American Veterans have had with the handling of individual cases, and our close observation of the final appeal decisions made in these cases, lead us to conclude that some form of judicial review should be established.

We feel that we can best demonstrate the need for judicial review by citing to you several example cases from among hundreds we maintain for the purposes of this legislation. The following 10 selected individual cases involve different questions at issue and will reveal the obvious inequities in the decisions when we review the facts and evidence in each case.

CASE NO. 1-SERVICE CONNECTION FOR STOMACH ULCER DISABILITY

The question is this case is whether the evidence of record and the application of Veterans' Administration law and regulation permits a finding of service connection for duodenal ulcer.

This veteran had active military service from April 18, 1941, to December 14, 1944, of which 29 months were spent in the Asiatic Pa

cific area with combat in the Papuan and New Guinea campaigns. Military clinical records reveal extensive treatment for malaria attacks and ankylostomiasis although there is no official clinical record of treatment for a stomach ulcer.

Following discharge from service, the veteran was rated 50 percent for malaria until July 1948. In view of the absence of service clinical records, the veteran submitted in evidence sworn affidavits from three service associates who served with him in the 32d Infantry Division. These affiants testified that the veteran received treatment for a stomach condition during service on a number of occasions and that he complained of having severe stomach pains and they recall the veteran receiving medication for a stomach disorder. There is of record a medical statement from a qualified physician, Dr. E. W. B., who has testified under oath that he first examined the veteran on January 2, 1945, and diagnosed a peptic ulcer and prescribed medication consisting of antacids, sedatives, and belladonna and further testified that the veteran continued to suffer from stomach complaints until surgery in 1953.

Dr. T. D. E. also testified that he treated the veteran in May 1947 for typical peptic ulcer, prescribing an ulcer regimen. It will be noted that the veteran submitted himself for definite medical treatment for stomach ulcer within 1 month following his discharge from military service.

Despite the above evidence which includes rigorous military service, testimony of several service associates who witnessed manifestations of stomach disability in service, and the testimony of reputable physicians who examined the veteran within a month following discharge and found typical peptic ulcer, the Board of Veterans Appeals, in an original decision of August 5, 1958, denied service connection for duodenal ulcer.

It is obvious that little or no weight has been accorded any of the evidence related above and certainly this evidence creates a reasonable doubt of service connection which has not been resolved in the veteran's favor.

CASE NO. 2-SERVICE CONNECTION FOR CAUSE OF DEATH

The question at issue in this case is whether the veteran's death resulted from service-connected causes so as to entitle his widow to death compensation.

The veteran died March 28, 1958, at the age of 39 from pneumonia and bronchogenic carcinoma. During his lifetime he was 70 percent disabled from gunshot wounds of the abdomen and back with abdominal adhesions, loss of right kidney and injury to the left pleural cavity with retained foreign bodies.

The veteran served from June 1944 to September 1945 and during combat in the Ardennes campaign in Europe, sustained a shell fragment wound of the back and side, resulting in removal of the right kidney and gunshot wound damage to muscular structure of the back. Following surgery for removal of the kidney, he developed pneumonia in the left lung, complicated by left hemothorax and left pleural effusion. Chest X-rays at the time revealed calcific tracheobronchial lymph nodes in the left lung root with obliteration of sinuses and thickened pleural tissue.