Page images
PDF
EPUB

Bickel to additional compensation under section 213 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924 (ch. 320, 43 Stat. 607, 623), as amended by section 11 of the Act of March 4, 1925 (ch. 553, 43 Stat. 1302, 1308), for a disability alleged to have been incurred as a result of training awarded to him under the provisions of law authorizing vocational rehabilitation for ex-service men.

You state that while in vocational training, with an objective of carpenter, William Bickel was instructed by his counselor on December 20, 1924, to accompany the counselor to the site of a new job near Sycamore Station, Md.; that they traveled in the automobile of the counselor to the site, where Bickel received instructions as to the manner in which he should proceed with the job on the next workingday; and that while the automobile was being turned around in a lane on the property preparatory to returning to Washington a branch of a tree caught in the windshield and snapped back into Bickel's face, injuring his right eye.

Section 213 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, reads as follows:

"SEC. 213. Where any beneficiary suffers or has suffered an injury or an aggravation of an existing injury as the result of training, hospitalization, or medical or surgical treatment, awarded to him under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act as amended, the War Risk Insurance Act as amended, or this Act, or as a result of having submitted to examination under authority of section 303 of the War Risk Insurance Act or section 203 of this Act, and not the result of his misconduct, and such injury or aggravation of an existing injury results in additional disability to or the death of such beneficiary, the benefits of this title shall be awarded in the same manner as though such disability, aggravation, or death was the result of military service during the World War. The benefits of this section shall be in lieu of the benefits under the Act entitled 'An Act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes,' approved September 7, 1916: Provided, That application be made for such benefits within two years after such injury or aggravation was suffered or such death occurred or after the passage of this Act whichever is the later date:

Provided further, That the provisions of section 313 of the War Risk Insurance Act as amended, relating to subrogation, shall be applicable to beneficiaries under this section."

As stated in an opinion of my predecessor dated June 12, 1926 (35 Op. 76), the benefits of section 213 are confined to cases of injuries resulting from training, hospitalization, or medical or surgical treatment, and hence in a case like the present there must be a causal connection between the training and the injury suffered.

It is probably impossible to state a general rule for determining whether such a causal connection is present in any given case. But while I do not question the conclusion reached in the opinion of my predecessor dated June 12, 1926, that the necessary causal connection did not exist in any of the three cases then under consideration, I believe that some of the general language used in that opinion is perhaps too broad in so far as it intimates that cases decided under the English Workmen's Compensation Act and the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the various States can not safely be resorted to for guidance in determining whether or not an injury in any given case results from training.

66

The English Workmen's Compensation Act and the Workmen's Compensation Acts of most of the States provide for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. It seems to be well settled that the words arising out of," as used in the Acts, require causal connection between employment and injury. Fitzgerald v. Clarke and Son, 99 L. T. R. 101; McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497; Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. L. 72; Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., 184 Mich., 87; Boyd on Workmen's Compensation, sec. 472; Bradbury on Workmen's Compensation, 3rd ed., page 461. The question discussed, therefore, in many cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts has been whether an injury arises out of or results from employment, and while these cases have not succeeded in stating a general test for determining when the necessary casual connection is present, nevertheless they have illustrated various situations which may be recognized as falling on one side or the other of the line and afford an analogy which is helpful in considering cases under the present statute. Under these circum

1

stances, I think, it should be assumed that when Congress inserted in section 213 the requirement that injury must result from training, without attempting to define more closely the necessary degree of casual connection, it intended that the general word "result" should be interpreted in the light of the cases decided under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

If I am right in that assumption, there can be no doubt that Bickel's injury resulted from his training. At the time of the injury he was in an automobile controlled by his counselor at a place which was on the premises where his work was to be performed. The counselor had control both of the automobile and of the route selected to reach the work. There are many cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts holding that under circumstances similar to these the injury results from the employment. De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W. Va. 32; In re Stacy, 225 Mass. 174; Sundine's Case, 218 Mass. 1; Sedlock v. Min ing Co., 98 Kan. 680; Zabriskie v. Erie R. R. Co., 86 N. J. L. 266; Donovan's Case, 217 Mass. 76; Bradbury on Workmen's Compensation, 3rd ed., page 480; Boyd on Workmen's Compensation, section 486.

Respectfully,

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

To the DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES VETERANS' Bureau.

ISSUANCE OF DUPLICATE IN LIEU OF STOLEN UNITED STATES REGISTERED BOND

A United States bond registered in the name of a minor and bearing an assignment executed by the minor's natural guardian in favor of the "Secretary of the Treasury for exchange," was stolen from a bank having custody of same, held that the assignment of the bond was invalid and because of such invalid assignment a subsequent transferee of the bond can not obtain title to the same, for in contemplation of law the bond remains untransferred and retains its character as a registered bond and the protection of registration; and that, under such circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by section 3704 of the Revised Statutes to issue a duplicate in lieu of the stolen bond.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 3, 1929.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 19, 1929, stating that the Rushville State Bank of Rushville, N. Y. has made application under the provisions of section 3704, Revised Statutes of the United States, for the issue of a duplicate in lieu of a United States registered bond stolen from the possession of the bank.

It appears from your letter and accompanying papers that the bond was of the third series Liberty loans and registered on the books of the Treasury Department in the form "Howard Bardwell under guardianship of Fred Bardwell "; that Howard Bardwell is a minor about 18 years of age at this time, and is the son of Fred Bardwell, with whom he resides at or near Stanley, N. Y.; that Fred Bardwell is the natural guardian of Howard Bardwell, the latter having no legal guardian; that on or about January 23, 1925, the Rushville State Bank of Rushville, N. Y., forwarded the bond in question to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with the request that it be exchanged for a coupon bond; that the bond bore an assignment by Fred Bardwell as guardian in favor of the "Secretary of the Treasury for exchange" and was accompanied by an application by Fred Bardwell on Treasury Department Form L. & C. 302, for the exchange of the bond; that the form was not completely filled out, and was returned by the Federal Reserve Bank for completion; that no attempt was made to complete the application and on February 2, 1925, at the request of the Rushville State Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York returned the bond without action.

It is also stated that the Rushville State Bank retained possession of the bond, as custodian, until the night of October 21, 1925, when the bank was entered by burglars and the bond with other securities stolen; that the burglars have never been apprehended and no information has been obtained as to the disposition made of the bond; that the bank was indemnified for the loss of the bond by its insurers, the Travelers Indemnity Co. and the National Surety Co., and now desires to replace the stolen registered bond with a

141183°-32-VOL 36- 5

coupon bond, the registered bond having matured September 15, 1928.

My opinion is requested as to whether or not the Treasury Department may issue a duplicate bond under section 3704 of the Revised Statutes which provides:

“Whenever it is proved to the Secretary of the Treasury, by clear and satisfactory evidence, that any duly registered bond of the United States, bearing interest, issued for valuable consideration in pursuance of law, has been lost or destroyed, so that the same is not held by any person as his own property, the Secretary shall issue a duplicate of such registered bond, of like amount, and bearing like interest, and marked in the like manner as the bond so proved to be lost or destroyed." (Underscoring supplied.)

The law authorizing the third Liberty loan is contained in the Act of September 24, 1917, c. 56, section 1, 40 Stat. 288, as amended by the Act of April 4, 1918, c. 44, 40 Stat. 502. So far as material here, section 1 reads as follows:

"The bonds herein authorized shall be in such form or forms and denomination or demoninations and subject to such terms and conditions of issue, conversion, redemption, maturities, payment, and rate or rates of interest, not exceeding four and one-quarter per centum per annum, and time or times of payment of interest, as the Secretary of the Treasury from time to time at or before the issue thereof may prescribe."

In pursuance of the authority conferred upon him, the Secretary of the Treasury issued certain regulations prescribing the mode of assigning Liberty bonds and the effect of such assignments. Paragraph 5, extract No. 12, of paragraph 32, Treasury Circular No. 300, dated July 31, 1923, provides:

"Assignments of registered bonds may be made to a specified person, or in blank, or may be made to the Secretary of the Treasury for transfer to a specified person, or to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange for coupon bonds. Registered bonds assigned in blank, or bearing assignments for exchange for coupon bonds which do not restrict delivery, are in effect payable to bearer and lack the protection of registration, since title thereto may pass by delivery with

« PreviousContinue »