Blair v. United States
Decision Date | 17 February 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 8974.,8974. |
Citation | 47 F.2d 109 |
Parties | BLAIR v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jonas F. Dyson, of Cotton Plant, Ark., for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh, Atty. United States Veterans' Bureau, of Washington, D. C. (Wallace Townsend, U. S. Atty., and J. A. Tellier, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., both of Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KENYON and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and REEVES, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing appellant's complaint and denying the right of appellant to recover upon a certain war-risk insurance certificate issued to him by the United States while he was in its naval service.
A jury was waived in writing, and the court made certain findings of fact as follows:
The court made the following declaration of law:
Under this condition of the record the only proposition before this court is whether or not the trial court's findings are based on substantial evidence. If they are, they are not reviewable here. The one of controlling importance is No. 6. Wabash Ry. Co. v. South Daviess County Drainage Dist. (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 909; Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Bailey (C. C. A.) 13 F.(2d) 113; Harrison v. United States (C. C. A.) 42 F.(2d) 736.
It is unquestioned that the certificate of insurance, the basis of this suit, was duly issued while appellant was in the service. He was discharged therefrom on the 11th day of February, 1919. The premiums were paid to that time. It is agreed that the certificate of insurance lapsed on the 31st day of March, 1919, and appellant could recover judgment thereon only if he became totally and permanently disabled under the law and the terms of said certificate prior to that date. The burden to so show was upon him.
The meaning of the term "totally and permanently disabled" is well settled by the authorities, and is clearly stated in United States v. Sligh (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 735, 736: See, also, United States v. Cox (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 944; United States v. McPhee (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 243; United States v. Acker (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 646. This court discussed this question in United States v. Phillips, 44 F.(2d) 689.
We review the evidence somewhat to determine whether the findings of the court had substantial evidence to support them. Appellant introduced in the trial his medical service record while he was in the Navy, his own testimony, the testimony of two medical experts, and the testimony of a lay witness. There is nothing in the medical service record to show that he was totally disabled while in active naval service. True, he was discharged from the service because of a disability, which seems to have been an irritating kind of rheumatism, but the fact of discharge is not proof of permanent and total disability. It evidences that he was not fit to perform his duties as a sailor in time of war, and it would tend to show some temporary disability. Appellant in his own testimony seems to have had a keen knowledge of the law, for, when asked as to his claim of being permanently and totally disabled, he replied, "I cannot continuously follow a gainful occupation," and he testifies he was unable to work continuously after his discharge because of rheumatism and thyroid trouble. He did, however, in July after his discharge take a course in vocational training at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. La Favor
...54 S.Ct. 272, 78 L.Ed. 492. The pursuit of vocational training is inconsistent also with the claim of permanent disability. Blair v. U. S., 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 109; O'Quinn v. U. S., 5 Cir., 70 F.2d The cases we cite below sustain our conclusion that the evidence of total and permanent disabili......
-
United States v. Krumsiek, 3548.
...In the case at bar there is no testimony that anyone ever saw the application for insurance. In the case entitled Blair v. United States, 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 109, 111, the court said: "While the courts are liberal in construing these insurance policies, and resolve doubts in favor of the insure......
-
United States v. Nelson
...fact of his vocational training over so long a period is inconsistent with the theory of total and permanent disability. Blair v. United States, 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 109; United States v. La Favor et al., 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 425; O'Quinn v. United States, 5 Cir., 70 F.2d It follows from the foregoin......
-
United States v. Gibbs, 8633.
...consider a three-year venture in vocational training as some evidence of a lack of total and permanent disability. Blair v. United States, 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 109. Appellant relies strongly upon United States v. Fairbanks, 9 Cir., 89 F.2d 949, but that case is distinguishable in that the record......