« AnteriorContinuar »
The records show that your son, while attached to the Naval Air Station, San Diego, Calif., was granted leave of absence for the period July 2 to August 1, 1937, was taken ill on July 18, 1937, and on July 21, 1937, was admitted to the Research Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., for treatment.
Enlisted men of the Navy are not entitled to civilian medical, hospital, and nursing services while on leave of absence. Such services were available for your son at his duty station and having placed himself beyond the reach of such services, there is no authority for reimbursement from public funds as claimed. I, therefore, certify that no balance is found due you from the United States. Respectfully,
R. N. ELLIOTT, Acting Comptroller General of the United States.
By J. C. DONOHOE.
OAK GROVE, Mo., April 13, 1938. COMPTROLLER GENERAL,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Received your letter of March 22 in which my claim No. 0425114 for the hospitalization expenses of my son, Donald S. Wayman, aviation machinist's mate, third class, United States Navy, was not allowed. I wish to request a review of this case. If I correctly understand your letter, my claim was refused because enlisted men on leave are not entitled to civilian hospitalization expenses. I did not intend to make my claim on those grounds. The point I tried to make was that a governmental hospital was available and that Donald was refused admission to that Government hospital for a period of 8 days thus causing a civilian hospital bill.
I do not know why Donald was refused admission to the Government hospital for 8 days and then was admitted, unless it was due to the serious contagion of infantile paralysis in its early stage. I do not criticize the commanding officer for delaying Donald's admission to the Government hospital, in fact I commend him for doing everything in his power to protect the health of the men under his charge. Unquestionably, if the disease had not been contagious Donald would have been admitted immediately. However, if the administrative department elected to keep Donald from the Government hospital for the 8 days due to the serious contagious nature of his disease, even though Donald had a legal right to the services of the Government hospital if he so applied (which he did), whether on leave or on active duty, then I feel that the Government should be legally and morally responsible for his hospitalization expenses during those 8 days. Respectfully
H. S. Wayman, Oak Grove, Mo. P.S.—That you may better understand the case, I give you the following details on the attached copy.
DETAILS IN REFERENCE TO CLAIM NO. 0425114
As stated in your letter, the record shows that Donald was taken ill July 18, 1937, and on July 21, 1937, was admitted to Research Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., for treatment. From July 18 until July 21, we thought that Donald did not have a sickness of any consequence.
Our local doctor said it was sinus trouble, and as Donald had had sinus trouble before, we thought his illness would be gone in a few days, as it had on previous occasions. On the morning of July 21, our local doctor found that Donald was becoming paralyzed in both legs and ordered Donald rushed to a hospital to confirm his diagnosis of infantile paralysis. Donald was immediately taken, in the doctor's car, to Research Hospital in Kansas City, which is 30 miles from our home.
I sent Donald to Research Hospital only for emergency treatment, until I could report to the Navy Department at Kansas City. I went to the Navy office about noon, July 21, and reported the case. Dr. McLennon, the Navy doctor, examined Donald at Research Hospital about 2 o'clock the same afternoon, July 21, and told me Donald would be sent to the Government station hospital at Fort Leavenworth, either that afternoon or the next morning, July 22. On July 22, the Government station hospital refused to admit Donald and did not admit him until July 29, which was 8 days after I had notified the Navy Department at Kansas City of his sickness, and the Navy had requested his admittance to the Government station hospital. It was during this 8 days that the hospitalization expenses were created.
Fort Leavenworth is 30 miles from Kansas City. On July 21, doctors, both Navy and civilian, said Donald could be transferred to the Government station hospital, so far as his condition was concerned. Respectfully,
H. S. WAYMAN.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, May 31, 1938. Mr. H. S WAYMAN,
Oak Grove, Mo. Sir: There has been received your request for review of settlement March 22, 1938, disallowing your claim for reimbursement of expenses of nursing services for your son, Donald S. Wayman, AMM3c, United States Navy, from July 21 to 28, 1937, while under treatment in the Research Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., in circumstances, as follows:
Your son was granted leave from his duty station, the Naval Air Station, San Diego, Calif., for the period July 2 to August 1, 1937, and while on leave was taken ill at his home, Oak Grove, Mo. YO state that on the morning of July 21 your local doctor found that your son was becoming paralyzed in both legs, indicating he had infantile paralysis, and ordered him rushed to the hospital; that you immediately sent him to the Research Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., for emergency treatment until you could report the matter to the Navy recruiting office at Kansas City; that you did so report to the officer in charge of the Navy recruiting station about noon of that day; that Dr. McLennon, the Navy doctor attached to the recruiting station, examined your son at the hospital about 2 p. m. that day and told you that your son would be sent to the Government station hospital at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., that afternoon or the next morning. You state further that the officer in charge of the Army hospital at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., refused to promptly admit your son and did not admit him until July 29 1937, 8 days after his admission had been requested. It was during this period of 8 days that the hospitalization expenses were incurred.
When an officer or enlisted man of the Navy goes on leave he is not entitled to be furnished civilian hospital and medical service at the expense of the United States. The fact that your son was distant from Government hospital facilities when taken ill was not due to his location in a duty status but to the position in which he placed himself for his own pleasure and convenience.
Both in the Army and the Navy it is the practice in the case of injury or illness to admit members of the particular service on leave of absence from duty to the Army or the Navy hospital (as the case may be) to which they report, and there is a reciprocal arrangement between the Army and the Navy to admit such persons in these circumstances from the other service. However, this practice gives to officers and enlisted men of either service on leave of absence no right to admission to hospitals of the other service while on leave, and, obviously, delay in admission to such hospital after application does not transfer the cost of civilian medical and hospital treatment in the meantime to the Government. Your claim was properly disallowed and on review is sustained. Respectfully,
R. N. ELLIOTT, Acting Comptroller General of the United States.
JUNE 5 (legislative day, May 28), 1940.--Ordered to be printed
Mr. Hughes, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following
(To accompany H. R. 4801)
The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4801) for the relief of Mary Camastro, a minor, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment.
The facts are fully set forth in House Report No. 1864, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report.
H. Rept. No. 1864, 76th Cong., 3d sess. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4801) for the relief of Principio Amen, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass
The amendments are as follows:
Page 1, line 5, strike out the name “Principio Amen” and insert in lieu thereof "the legal guardian of Mary Camastro, a minor, of Corona, New York.”
Page 1, line 6, strike out the sign and figures "$7,500” and insert in lieu thereof "$5,000”
Page 1, line 6, between the words “of” and “claim”, insert “all”.
Page 1, line 8, strike out the words "his infant daughter” and insert in lieu thereof "the said”.
At the end of the bill add: “: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or agents, attorney or attorneys, on account of services rendered in connection with said claim. It shall be unlawful for any agent or agents, attorney or attorneys, to exact, collect, withhold, or receive any sum of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof on account of services rendered in connection with said claim, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.”
Amend the title of the bill to read“A bill for the relief of Mary Camastro, a minor.” The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to the legal guardian of Mary Camastro, a minor, of Corona, N. Y., the sum of $5,000 in full settlement of all claims against the United States on account of permanent injuries sustained by the said Mary Camastro, when she was struck by an Army truck on April 4, 1936, about 1 p. m., at the northwest corner of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, Corona, Queens County, N. Y.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At about 1 p. m., on April 4, 1936, a convoy of approximately 125 Army trucks, on official business, was proceeding in a westerly direction on Northern Boulevard, en route to New York City. The convoy was under New York police escort and was traveling at an estimated speed of 22 to 25 miles per hour. The particular truck involved in this accident was about the seventieth truck in the convoy, and bore the title “62nd C. A., Battery C, W. 451." It is stated by the War Department that this truck was traveling approximately 40 feet in the rear of the truck preceding it. However, it is stated by a disinterested witness whose statement is hereafter appended that this truck was approximately 200 feet, or nearly a block, behind the preceding truck, and it is stated by this witness and another disinterested witness that the truck was traveling at a rate of speed estimated by them to be between 40 and 45 miles per hour.
As the Government vehicle approached the intersection of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, at which intersection no policeman was on duty at the time of the accident, the traffic light turned red for Northern Boulevard and green for One Hundred and Third Street. The convoy, under police escort, had the right-of-way through all traffic lights, and consequently the driver of the Government vehicle did not bring his truck to a stop at the approach to the intersection on the change of the traffic light to red.
At the time the traffic light turned green for One Hundred and Third Street, a bus and a civilian car waiting on the south side of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, apparently assuming that they had the right-ofway, started to cross Northern Boulevard. The bus stopped, but the civilian car, owned by a Mr. Joseph Malley, and driven by his wife, Mrs. Daisy Malley, continued across the intersection at a speed of approximately 10 miles per hour.
Mrs. Malley had nearly completed crossing the intersection when she saw the Army truck bearing down on her. When she saw the vehicle approaching, she turned west (or to her left) in an attempt to avoid being hit. The Government driver applied his brakes and turned to the right in an effort to avoid an accident, but was unable to bring his vehicle to stop, probably due to the fact he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, or driving with defective brakes, or both. As the truck struck the civilian car it pushed the car some distance into the curb and against a light pole on the northwest corner, where a group of children were standing.
Mary Camastro, then aged 9 years, was one of this group of children, and the child was pinned against the lamppost by the private car. The girl was extricated from the wreckage and taken to a nearby drug store, where unsuccessful attempts were made to revive her. About half an hour after the accident the child was taken to Flushing Hospital and was not discharged therefrom until September 15, 1936, when she was able to walk with the aid of crutches.
The hospital's statement reads in part as follows: “Diagnosis: Fracture of left femur. Lacerations of scalp and face. “Operations: Lacerations on face sutured with seven horsehair sutures and four silkworm sutures. Reduction and cast from hip to ankle, left. Open reduction and insertion bone plate. Skin graft on areas of erosion and infection on heel and on dorsum of leg, each about 2 inches in diameter. Removal of bone plate, left femur.'
On June 14, 1939, Dr. Samuel E. Di Figlia, the girl's family physician, submitted a statement, showing the following permanent defects as a result of her injuries:
1. Shortening of left leg of 4 inches, with marked disfigurement of left leg consisting of marked lateral and anterior bowing of left femur.
2. Limitation of motion at knee joint of 50 percent, with consequent loss of free use of left leg.
3. Large, disfiguring operative scars on left thigh, heel, and foot. 4. Mutliple scars of face, forehead, and scalp.
The hospital bill amounted to $803.50, and there were, of course, various other expenses, such as the family physician's fee, drugs, crutches, etc.
It is the opinion of your committee, in view of the heavy expenses undergone in this case, and in view of the fact this child is permanently disfigured and çrippled, that the amount of $5,000 should be allowed to compensate her.
The War Department states in part as follows in its report to your committee:
“From the above it appears that Mary Camastro has suffered some personal injuries as a result of the accident, and the War Department will interpose no objection to the enactment of legislation compensate her guardian for these injuries in such amount as the Congress may deem proper to allow."
Appended hereto is the report of the War Department. together with other pertinent evidence.
Washington, June 12, 1939.
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KENNEDY: Careful consideration has been given to the bill (H. R. 4801, 76th Cong., Ist sess.) for the relief of Principio Amen, which you transmitted to the War Department under date of May 19, 1939, with request for information and the views of the Department relative thereto.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Principio Amen, 101-102 Northern Boulevard, Corona, Long Island, N.' Y., the sum of $7,500, in full settlement of claim against the United States on account of permanent injuries received by his infant daughter, Mary Camastro, by a United States Army truck on April 4, 1936, at northwest corner of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, Corona, Queens County, N. Y.
On April 4, 1936, a Government vehicle, on official business, was about the seventieth truck in a convoy of approximately 125 trucks proceeding on Northern Boulevard, en route to New York City, under New York police escort, at a speed of 22 to 25 miles per hour. The Government vehicle was traveling approximately 40 feet in rear of the truck in front of it. As the Government vehicle approached the intersection of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, at which intersection no policeman was on duty at the time of the accident, the traffic light turned red for Northern Boulevard and green for One Hundred and Third Street. The convoy, under police escort, had the right-of-way through all traffic lights, and consequently the driver of the Government vehicle did not bring his truck to a stop at the approach to the intersection on the change of the traffic light to red. At the time the traffic light turned green for One Hundred and Third Street, a bus and a civilian car waiting on the south side of Northern Boulevard and One Hundred and Third Street, apparently assuming that they had the rightof-way, started to cross Northern Boulevard. The bus stopped, but the civilian car, owned by Mr. Joseph Malley and driven by his wife, Mrs. Daisy Malley, continued across the intersection at a speed of approximately 10 miles per hour and attempted to cut through the convoy ahead of the Government vehicle. When she saw the Army truck bearing down on her she turned west in an attempt to avoid being hit. The Government driver, upon observing the civilian car crossing the intersection, applied his brakes and turned to the right in an effort to avoid an accident, but was unable to do so and struck the civilian car, pushing it some distance into the curb and against a light pole on the northwest corner, where a group of children was standing, including Mary Camastro, who was injured.
As a result of this accident Mary Camastro was admitted to the Flushing, Long Island, Hospital and was discharged therefrom on September 15, 1936. Diagnosis: Fracture of the left femur and lacerations of the scalp and face. Operations: Open reduction left femur, with application of metal plate April 18, 1936; removal of plate, September 1, 1936.
A claim in behalf of Mary Camastro was filed with the War Department by her stepfather, Mr. Principio Amen, in an unstated amount on account of personal injuries to his stepdaughter, by reason of this accident.
The Army doctor who examined Mary Camastro on January 31, 1938, reported his findings as follows:
1. Shortening of the left leg 1 inch, with marked pelvic list.
3. Atrophy of the left thigh 1 inch in circumference as measured from 2 inches above the upper end of the fibula.
4. Scars as follows:
(b) Irregular shaped scar over upper fibular head, left, 4 inches by 6 inches in its greatest diameters.
(c) Scar over anterior surface, left lower tibia, about 1 inch in diameter.