Walsh v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 October 1938
• Citation: 24 F. Supp. 877
• Parties: WALSH v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

24 F. Supp. 877

WALSH v. UNITED STATES

District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

October 10, 1938.

Peter S. Rask, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.

Russell C. Rosenquest, Asst. U. S. Atty. of St. Paul, Minn., for the United States.

SULLIVAN, District Judge.

This is a suit on a Government War Risk Insurance policy. The plaintiff entered the military service on June 29, 1916, and was honorably discharged therefrom on March 17, 1919. While in the service, he obtained a policy of War Risk Insurance which lapsed for nonpayment of premiums. The contract of insurance was thereafter reinstated, and on March 1, 1927, was converted into Government life insurance. Premiums were paid to September 1, 1934, and the policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums on October 1, 1934.

The plaintiff was born on December 1, 1897, was married on December 17, 1917, and has three children, of the ages of ten, fifteen and eighteen years. He has a common school education. He served overseas in the World War from September, 1918, to March, 1919.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that on September 30, 1934, while the said policy of insurance was in full force and effect, he was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the terms of the contract of the said Government insurance by reason of the fact that at said time he was suffering from valvular heart disease, mitral stenosis and chronic duodenal ulcer, and nervous and mental disease, namely, major hysteria and psychoneurosis.

On February 11, 1937, the plaintiff filed with the Veterans Administration, at Washington, District of Columbia, a claim for, with his records and proof of, total and permanent disability benefits under said converted contract of Government insurance, and on August 27, 1937, the Director of said Veterans Administration denied said claim. Accordingly, at the time of the institution of this suit, a jurisdictional disagreement existed as to the claim.

The plaintiff and his wife testified at the trial, and their testimony generally supports the contentions and claims set out in the complaint herein.

Two medical witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff that on the date of his examinations during the month of April, 1938, the plaintiff was of normal weight and well muscled, but showed a deformity of his duodenal cap which indicated that he was suffering from an active duodenal ulcer, and that it was their opinion that during the month of September, 1934, and at the present time, plaintiff was and is suffering from mitral stenosis, paroxysmal tachycardia (excessive rapid beating of the heart), chronic duodenal ulcer and major hysteria; that the heart condition is "compensated"; that hysteria is a functional nervous disorder based upon either conscious or unconscious conflict in the emotions; and that all of the above ailments are permanent. One doctor stated that the insured is a poor surgical risk for operative treatment of the ulcer because of his heart ailment and hysteria, and the chronic condition of the ulcer; that the insured should not operate an automobile and should not be around machinery; that while he could be employed at a desk job, he could not follow any sustained occupation at that desk. However, on cross-examination the witness testified that insofar as the hysteria is concerned, work would be good for him; that with reference to the heart condition, work such as office or desk work where no physical exertion or intense excitement are involved, could be done by him without danger to his health, were he qualified to do such work by education; and that as to the duodenal ulcer, providing the same was controlled by diet and allowing for certain pain and discomfort therefrom, it would not prevent him from engaging in a type of work requiring limited exertion and effort. The other doctor expressed the opinion that the plaintiff has, and did in September, 1934, have, a definite mitral stenosis which impairs him to the point that he is not able to do any active work; that he should be restricted from all heavy manual labor, excessive walking, and should avoid hurrying; that his walking should be limited; that manual labor, lifting or bending, or anything that requires "any effort" should not be undertaken. "He can lead a fairly normal life if you bar physical efforts, if that is minimized."

Three medical witnesses testified for and on behalf of the Government. All of these doctors are in accord with the opinion that the plaintiff now has, and in September, 1934, was afflicted with, valvular heart disease, termed mitral stenosis; and stated that the same was entirely "compensated" and that mitral stenosis is a permanent condition. One of the doctors for the Government, in addition to expressing an opinion that plaintiff was suffering from mitral stenosis, stated that at the time of his examination in the summer of 1937, plaintiff was not suffering from major hysteria, but was anxious, concerned and apprehensive over his physical condition. Another of the doctors for the Government testified that the plaintiff was not afflicted with major hysteria, but that he was suffering from a psychoneurosis, of the anxiety type. Both of these doctors are of the opinion that this nervous condition will disappear, and that the plaintiff will recover from that ailment. The doctors for the Government are in agreement that it would not be harmful to, or aggravate the heart condition of, the plaintiff if he were to engage in activities other than heavy manual labor, and that he would be able to carry on any ordinary, reasonably active occupation without any disturbance arising from the heart condition; that work would be beneficial to his nervous condition. They made no extensive examination of the plaintiff for duodenal ulcer, but do...