Mozur v. Orr
Decision Date | 15 January 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 83-1204. |
Citation | 600 F. Supp. 772 |
Parties | Robert S. MOZUR v. Verne ORR, Secretary of the Air Force. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Eric J. Fischer, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Rachel Shao, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
Plaintiff joined the Army Air Corps (currently the Air Force) in January, 1943. The Report of Physical Examination and Induction dated December 22, 1942 notes no serious medical problems and states that plaintiff was "physically and mentally qualified for general military service." Military Personnel Records at 5.
On June 28, 1943, plaintiff was discharged from duty. The Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Man Prior to Discharge or Retirement states that plaintiff suffered from "Psychoneurosis, mixed type" incurred under "unknown" circumstances. The certification of the immediate commanding officer on the discharge form states that "in my opinion the disease was not incurred in the line of duty in the military service of the United States." Air Force Correction Board Proceedings at 24. The same certification is provided by the physician who performed the discharge physical examination.
The discharge was the result of a recommendation by the Army physician who was treating plaintiff in May, 1943. That physician concluded that plaintiff suffered from "psychoneurosis, mixed type, severe, cause undetermined, manifested by extreme psychosomatic introspection, insomnia, and episodes of somnambulism all without organic basis." Air Force Correction Board Proceedings at 26. The treating physician found that this condition was not incurred in the line of duty. Id.
Prior to his discharge, plaintiff had been hospitalized continuously from approximately April 30, 1943. The physician who took plaintiff's medical history at the time of a May 15, 1943 examination noted that plaintiff complained of Id. at 28. That same physician recites the history of plaintiff's illness as follows:
A May 23 physician's report relates a similar medical history and describes plaintiff's psychiatric status as follows:
Soldier is quite garrulous. He can go on indefinitely recounting long and varied symptomatology. Despite the disabling nature of his symptoms as he relates them, he does so with evident relish and with a smile. He is an emotionally inadequate individual, who never apparently adjusted well to life since his so called "nervous breakdown" at the age of 17. He shows extreme psychosomatic introspection. There is no evidence of psychosis or mental deficiency. He is a pronounced Psychoneurotic. He may have some parathyroid deficiency; this however is not clearly evident. Certainly his psychoneurotic manifestations cannot be explained on a parathyroid deficiency. They (are explained on the basis of an inadequate personality reaction and have been continuously present for the last 4 or 5 years.) It is doubtful that any useful service can be obtained from this soldier and in view of his short period of service, separation under WD Cir. # 395 is recommended.
In 1944 plaintiff applied for and received disability benefits for his "nervous condition." Id. at 38. Those benefits were severed in 1957 "since a determination has been made that your nervous condition was not incurred in or aggravated by your military service in World War II." Id. at 39.
Plaintiff, represented by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, appealed this decision to the Board of Veterans Appeals. The Board denied the appeal following a hearing at which plaintiff and his mother appeared as witnesses. That decision, issued July 26, 1957, stated that the Board had considered not only the military records in the case but also the testimony presented at the hearing, affidavits of plaintiff's friends and letters from various physicians who had treated plaintiff both before and after his period of service.
Plaintiff then applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records ("AFBCMR") for a revision of his military records which would recite that his mental problems were service-connected. That pro se petition was denied in January, 1961. The decision of the AFBCMR states that the military records and the facts presented by plaintiff failed "to establish a showing of probable error or injustice in your case." Proceedings of Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at 1.
In 1982 plaintiff filed a new request with the AFBCMR for correction of his records. This time, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, plaintiff asked that the records be amended "to delete all reference to any mental disorder or nervous breakdown existing prior to induction in the Armed Forces." Air Force Correction Board Proceedings at 2. This request for amendment of records was accompanied by a large number of exhibits. They included letters written by five physicians who had seen plaintiff after his discharge from the service, all of whom concluded that plaintiff's mental condition was service-connected. In addition, the AFBCMR was provided with a letter from Dr. Leon Kacher who had treated plaintiff during his youth. That letter states Id. at 57. The application was also accompanied by over forty letters from persons who had known plaintiff prior to his induction in the service who stated that he did not suffer from any psychiatric problems prior to his period of service.
On January 25, 1983, the AFBCMR denied the renewed application. The decision of the AFBCMR stated, in pertinent part:
The recommendation of the Office of the Surgeon relied upon by the AFBCMR states:
Id. at 4. The only Veterans Administration records in the documentation before the AFBCMR are those from the 1957 Board of Veterans Appeals decision approving the termination of plaintiff's benefits.
Plaintiff filed this action for review of the AFBCMR's 1983 decision soon thereafter. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in the spring of 1984. In a Memorandum/Order dated June 29, 1984, I concluded that I should consider this appeal on the merits despite defendant's contention that the appeal was barred by laches. However, I found that before I could evaluate the merits of the motions, I would need further briefing on the applicability and content of an Army regulation which, plaintiff contended, established a presumption of sound condition upon induction or a presumption that any condition was aggravated in the service. Army Regulation 40-1025 (December 12, 1944). See Ludzinski v. United States, 154 Ct.Cl. 215 (1961). I directed that such additional briefing be provided according to a schedule established in that Memorandum/Order and that "all submissions should include copies of the full text of all regulations cited." Mozur v. Orr, No. 83-1204 (June 29, 1984) at 5.
The parties have now filed supplemental briefs and the matter is ripe for consideration. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment argues that the AFBCMR decision was arbitrary and capricious and not based upon substantial evidence. Plaintiff suggests that the standards developed in the "parallel" area of Social Security disability benefit appeals should be applied to this case. Plaintiff notes that the preinduction physical evaluation of plaintiff showed that no disability, mental or physical, was present in December 1942. In addition, plaintiff points to the various affidavits and physicians'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington v. Donley
...that the decision being reviewed was based on a “balanced consideration of all the evidence available and presented.” Mozur v. Orr, 600 F.Supp. 772, 783 (E.D.Pa.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Turning to the case at hand, the issue is whether the Board's decision making process wa......
-
Fuller v. Winter
...... state why evidence contrary to the ultimate conclusion reached was disregarded or given lesser weight.") (quoting Mozur v. Orr, 600 F.Supp. 772, 782 (E.D.Pa.1985)). Fuller makes quite a strong initial case. In response, the Secretary attempts to distinguish the cased that Fuller relies ......
-
Smith v. Dalton
...in reaching its decision not to correct his record. With respect to the issue of correction of records, Mozur v. Orr, Secretary of the Air Force, 600 F.Supp. 772 (E.D.Pa.1985), is instructive. The present case shares a similar factual posture as Mozur. In Mozur, a former serviceman sought c......
-
Jarrett v. White, C.A. No. 01-800 GMS (D. Del. 6/17/2002)
...decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether the agency considered all of the proffered evidence. See Mozur v. Orr, 600 F. Supp. 772, 776 (E.D.Pa. 1985); Smith v. Dalton, 927 F. Supp. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 1996). The plaintiff has the burden of proving arbitrary and capricious behavior......