# Vaughn v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · July 12, 1956 · 147 F. Supp. 280

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8591498

## Case

- **Full name:** CHARLES EDWARD VAUGHN v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** July 12, 1956
- **Citations:** 147 F. Supp. 280; 136 Ct. Cl. 317; 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 120
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Laramore
- **Judges:** Jones, Laramore, Littleton, Madden, Whitaker
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8591498

## Opinion text

Laramore, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reason the Disability Review Board acted beyond its authority when it found that plaintiff was permanently incapacitated for active service and that said incapacity originated during the period of plaintiff’s active service.
Section 302 (a) of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, supra, provides that “* * * It shall be the duty of any such board to review, at the request of any officer retired or released from active service, without pay, for physical disability pursuant to the decision of a retiring board, * *
Thus, under the plain wording of the statute, plaintiff must have been released from active service without pay for physical disability pursuant to a decision of a retiring board in order to give the Disability Review Board jurisdiction.
Plaintiff was not released for physical disability. In fact, the Army Retiring Board found plaintiff not permanently incapacitated.
I would grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
In accordance with the opinion of the court and on a memorandum report of the commissioner as to the amount due plaintiff thereunder, judgment for the plaintiff was entered February 6, 1957, for $14,051.42.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8591498. Public record. Not legal advice.