MAY 17 (legislative day, MAY 13), 1954.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 3109] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 3109) for the relief of Theodore W. Carlson, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed legislation is to grant to Theodore W. Carlson, Nisula, Mich., all of the rights, benefits, and privileges which are granted to persons who served on active duty with the United States Army during the period beginning December 7, 1941, and ending December 31, 1946, and who were honorably discharged therefrom, after having suffered total loss of vision in one eye as a result of such service. STATEMENT The evidence before the committee, based on statements of the claimant and supporting affidavits of his comrades in service and doctors who treated him immediately after service, together with evidence of Army records indicates the following: The claimant entered active duty with the Army on February 11, 1942, and the report of physical examination at the time of induction listed his vision in both eyes as 20/30; that in February 1945, while on active duty a foreign body entered his right eye, inflaming and infecting it; that he was treated in his unit's dispensary and experienced some relief and in July or August of 1945 the condition returned and he lost the vision in his right eye for a short period of time and when he again visited the dispensary, he was instructed to apply warm applications, which again resulted in some improvement; that when he was discharged on November 7, 1945, he stated listing his in-service medical history, that he was treated for disturbed vision of his left eye July 1945; that the medical records of discharge, however, show that upon discharge the vision in his right eye was 20/40 and in the left eye upon enlistment, 20/30. As to his reference to his left eye we have only the Army record to show that either he responded incorrectly or the entry was made incorrectly but the believable evidence is that the injury to his right eye was so reflected on his record upon his discharge. A month after his discharge and in December 1945 the claimant was treated by a Dr. Winkler, of L'Anse, Mich., and Dr. Winkler stated that at that time Mr. Carlson complained of pain and inflammation of his right eye which occurred at indefinite periods but with increasing frequency. Thereafter, the veteran was treated by other doctors and eye specialists until he was examined by Dr. McClure on November 21, 1947, at which time he was found to be totally blind in the right eye, and after certain other findings Dr. McClure noted his diagnosis of the condition as retinal detachment and tear involving the macular area of the right eye. After his claim was disapproved by the Veterans' Administration, the claimant was examined by Dr. W. W. Baumgartner, M. D., of Calumet, Mich., at the request of Hon. John B. Bennett, Representative from the State of Michigan, who introduced the bill. Dr. Baumgartner's diagnosis, as incorporated in a letter sent to the Veterans' Administration, stated in effect that the examination disclosed an old retinal detachment in the right eye which explained the loss of vision and that it was possible the previous injury to this eye incurred while the veteran was in the service and could have produced the retinal detachment. Since there is strong corroboration that this claimant suffered an injury to the right eye while on active duty in the military service, that the vision in the eye had decreased from his enlistment up to his discharge; that he immediately thereafter over a continuing period of time received medical treatment for the right eye and subsequently suffered loss of vision which according to medical testimony could have been a result of the injury which occurred during service, and since there is no credible or believable evidence that he was suffering from any chronic condition in this eye before service or that he received any injury to the eye after his discharge from the service, it is the committee's opinion that the injury was service connected and that if H. R. 3109 were not passed favorably by this committee it would result in discrimination to this veteran. The committee therefore recommends the favorable passage of H. R. 3109 by this committee. Attached hereto are the reports of the Department of the Army and the Veterans' Administration submitted in connection with this claim, as well as affidavits and letters pertinent to the claim. Hon. CHAUNCEY W. REED, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. REED: Reference is made to your letter enclosing a copy of H. R. 3109, 83d Congress, a bill for the relief of Theodore W. Carlson, and requesting a report on the merits of the bill. This bill provides as follows: "That Theodore W. Carlson (Veterans' Administration claim No. C-12587469), Nisula, Mich., who served on active duty with the United States Army during the period beginning February 11, 1942, and ending November 7, 1945, and was honorably discharged therefrom, is hereby granted all of the rights, benefits, and privileges which are granted to persons who served on active duty with the United States Army during the period beginning December 7, 1941, and ending December 31, 1946, and who were honorably discharged therefrom after having suffered permanent total loss of vision in one eye as a result of such service." The records of the Department of the Army show that the claimant, Theodor W. Carlson (referred to in H. R. 3109 as "Theodore W. Carlson"), was born at Galva, Ill., on December 28, 1912, being the son of Oscar Carlson and his wife, Mrs. Nettie Carlson; that he was inducted into the Army of the United States as a private at Milwaukee, Wis., on February 21, 1941, and was assigned Army Serial No. 36,201,968; that at the time of his induction he was unmarried, resided with his parents at R. F. D. No. 2, Pound, Wis., and his occupation was that of laborer; that he was promoted to private, first class, on August 6, 1941; and that on October 24, 1941, he was released from active duty in the Army and transferred to the Enlisted Reserve Corps. The records of this Department further show that Private Carlson was recalled to active duty in the Army effective February 11, 1942; that at the time he returned to active duty he resided at R. F. D. No. 2, Pound, Wis., and his occupation was that of general farm hand; that he was demoted to the grade of private on April 1, 1942; that he was promoted to private, first class, on April 23, 1942; that he was again demoted to private on June 5, 1942; and that he was promoted to technician, fifth grade, on June 24, 1942, to sergeant on September 1, 1942, and to staff sergeant on February 15, 1943. On February 5, 1943, Sergeant Carlson was married to Lempe L. Korpi, at Pittsburg, Calif. On April 25, 1945, this soldier was sent overseas for service in the Pacific theater of operations. He arrived in the Philippine Islands on May 17, 1945. He served in the Philippines until October 13, 1945, when he was returned to the United States. He arrived back in this country on October 30, 1945. A physical examination of Theodor W. Carlson at the time of his induction into the Army on February 21, 1941, disclosed that he had the following physical defects: Sixteen teeth missing, two replaced by bridge. Inguinal ring, moderately relaxed, right. Pes planus, second degree, bilateral. Vision, 20/30 bilateral. An examination of this soldier at the time of his recall to active duty on February 11, 1942, disclosed that he was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 156 pounds; that the vision in his right eye was 20/30, and in his left eye 20/20; and that his posture was good. In addition to defective vision of the right eye it was found that he had the following defects: Sixteen teeth missing, two replaced by fixed bridge. Varicocele, right, moderate. Pes planus, first degree, bilateral. On March 2, 1941, Private Carlson was removed from a troop train at El Paso, Tex., because of illness and taken to the William Beaumont General Hospital, United States Army, at El Paso, where his condition was diagnosed as "German measles." He remained a patient in said hospital until March 22, 1941, when he was returned to military duty. On August 8, 1945, he was admitted to the 316th General Hospital, United States Army, in the Philippine Islands, where his condition was diagnosed as "Nasopharyngitis, acute, catarrhal, moderate," the cause of which was not determined. He was hospitalized and treated in said hospital until August 16, 1945, when he was returned to general military duty. On November 7, 1945, this soldier was honorably discharged from the Army of the United States in the grade of staff sergeant. The discharge was occasioned by general demobilization. It appears that a physical examination given to Staff Sergeant Carlson immediately preceding his discharge from the service disclosed the vision in bis right eye as 20/40 and in the left eye as 20/30. It further appears that at the time of such examination Sergeant Carlson stated that he was treated for disturbed vision of his left eye in July 1945, and for a fever of undetermined origin in August 1945. However, he did not at the time of his discharge from the Army claim that he had any disability due to an eye injury. While the record in this case indicates that the claimant suffered a substantial impairment of vision during the time he was in the Army, the Department of the Army has been unable to find any evidence that this disability was incurred in or aggravated by his military service. The Veterans' Administration bas advised that a special eye examination given to the claimant on October 22, 1951, "showed the vision of his right eye as light perception and projection, and that of his left eye as 20/30-3." The Veterans' Administration has further advised that it has on several occasions considered 58003-55 S. Repts., 83-2, vol. 3- -17 the question of whether the eye disability from which the claimant is now suffering is service-connected, but that the Board of Veterans' Appeals has decided that such disability "is not shown to have been incurred or aggravated during service." Inasmuch as the claimant has not been examined by Army medical officers or treated in an Army hospital since his discharge from the Army on November 7, 1945, the Department of the Army does not feel that it is in a position to make any recommendation with respect to the merits of H. R. 3109. Since this Department has been requested to expedite the submission of a report on this bill to your committee, this report is transmitted to you without advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to whether there is any objection to its submission to the Congress. Sincerely yours, ROBERT T. STEVENS, To Whom It May Concern: L'ANSE, MICH., November 20, 1953. This is to certify that one Theodore Carlson came to me for treatment of his right eye December 15, 1945. At that time the eye was markedly inflamed and swollen with inflammation throughout the entire eye and marked vision impairment. This recovered under treatment very slowly but in a month's time the inflammation was practically gone but there was a definite impairment of vision. I could not have told anyone I never treated Mr. Carlson for inflammation of the eye for that would be very incorrect. My statement is as has been stated and has always been the same. Mr. Carlson was first treated by me December 15, 1945. At the time I treated Mr. Carlson, as of December 15, 1945, Mr. Carlson gave me a definite history of injury to his eye some time before while he was in the service. He stated he had injured the eye and the eye became quite sore and infected. The treatment while in the service did not necessitate hospitalization but was some time in duration. He stayed some foreign body was blown into his eye by a strong wind. This man was seen on several occasions between January 1946 and August 1947 for moderate inflammation of the eye and concerning the loss of vision of the right eye. In August 1947 this same process was gone through again and at that time the vision for a time was gone. The vision never returned except that he was able to tell light from dark. Yours truly, H. J. WINKLER, M. D. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of November, 1953. JUNE E. MARTELL, Notary Public, Baraga County, Mich. My commission expires February 22, 1954. To Whom It May Concern: BUCKLIN, Mo., December 29, 1950. I, Otho Vobernik, met Theodore Carlson in December 1944 at Fort Lewis, Wash. We served in the 316th General Hospital. He was a mess sergeant and I was a postal clerk. We became close friends. I never heard him complain about his health. During the last part of January 1945, I was at the dispensary receiving treatment for an eye infection, when Theodore came in saying he had gotten hit in the eye by something being blown by the wind, as it was a very windy day, while he was coming to the messhall. We both received treatments for several days. His right eye was bandaged at this time. We were moved to Camp Crowder for a period of about 6 weeks, and during this time he complained of his eye hurting. We were shipped overseas to Luzon, Philippine Islands, in May 1945, and Theodore continued to receive treatments for his right eye. This being a hospital unit he could receive treatments without being hospitalized. We were separated in August 1945. This above report is as near correct as I can recall during our association in the Army. Sincerely, OTHO VOBERNIK. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 29th day of December WADE PATRICK, Notary Public. 1950. My commission expires February 3, 1952. Re Carlson, Theodore W. (C 12587469) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., December 3, 1953. Administrator Veterans' Administration, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: This veteran's claim is subject to a bill which I have introduced in his behalf, H. R. 3109. An adverse report on the bill has been filed by your office and the claim has been before the Board of Veterans' Appeals on several occasions. There is ample evidence in the file to indicate the veteran injured his eye while in service, although he was not hospitalized, but my specific reason for contacting you at this time is to call your attention to an erroneous statement which appears in correspondence from your office and also appears in a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which reads as follows: "When contacted by a representative of this Administration, Dr. Winkler stated that he never treated the veteran for an eye disability, but referred him, to an eye specialist. The specialist's report indicates that he first saw the veteran on November 21, 1947." I am sending you, herewith, a sworn statement from Dr. Winkler which indicates that he never made any such remark to a representative of your organization or to anyone else. Because this is such a clear and obvious misstatement of the facts by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and by your office, I thought you would wish to reconsider the matter on the basis of Dr. Winkler's affidavit, which I am enclosing herewith. It is true that the case is before a committee of Congress but I do not think that would prevent the Veterans' Administration from reconsidering and correcting an obvious error. Will you please give this matter your attention and advise me. Sincerely yours, JOHN B. BENNETT. DECEMBER 14, 1953. Hon. JOHN B. BENNETT, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BENNETT: Further reference is made to your letter of December 3, 1953, concerning Theodore W. Carlson (C-12587469) and the report of the Veterans' Administration, dated July 17, 1953, to the House Committee on the Judiciary, relative to H. R. 3109, 83d Congress, a bill which you introduced on behalf of Mr. Carlson. Your letter quotes a statement, which appears in a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, dated May 21, 1952, relative to Mr. Carlson's case and in the report of the Veterans' Administration on the bill, to the effect that when a representative of the Veterans' Administration contacted Dr. H. J. Winkler he stated that he never treated the veteran for an eye disability but referred him to an eye specialist. You state that this is a misstatement of the facts in the case, and you request that the Veterans' Administration reconsider Mr. Carlson's case on the basis of an affidavit dated November 23, 1953, from Dr. Winkler, which you enclosed. An examination of the veteran's case file discloses that the statement in question is substantiated by a report of a Veterans' Administration field examiner, dated October 3, 1951. The field examiner stated in pertinent part: "*** Dr. Winkler advised that he never treated the man for an eye disability, as he was not an eye specialist, but that he referred the veteran to Dr. McClure and Dr. Baumgartner. *** Dr. Winkler stated that he could not make a statement relative to this veteran's eye disability as be never treated this veteran for his eyes." In the light of Dr. Winkler's recent affidavit, however, it is indicated that the Veterans' Administration field examiner, in making the statements quoted above, may have misunderstood Dr. Winkler. In view of your letter and the mentioned affidavit, the case is being referred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for further consideration, and you and the veteran will be advised of the outcome of such reconsideration. |