Opinion

Morrow v. United States

  • 156 Ct. Cl. 493
Court
United States Court of Claims
Filed
Mar 7, 1962
Status
Published
Author
Whitaker
On the bench
Dureee, Jones, Laramore, Whitaker
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Whitaker, Judge,

concurring:

It is physical incapacity at the time of discharge that determines entitlement to retired pay. At the time plaintiff was discharged he was not incapacitated for military duty. The Army did not find that he was; he did not think he was; and the evidence clearly shows that he was not.

When he was discharged there was no discernible evidence of multiple sclerosis. This was not recognized as a possibility until nearly three years after his discharge; it was not diagnosed as his trouble until over five years after his discharge. In the meantime, he had had a complete neurological examination, in November 1949, and eight months thereafter he had had a number of physical examinations at the Naval Hospital in Philadelphia.

Under such facts, I do not think plaintiff was entitled to be retired for physical disability.

I prefer to rest the decision on this ground, although I recognize we held in th% Remaley case, supra, that active duty for training did not come within the provisions of section 5 of the Act of April 3,1939, or of section 2, subsection (1) of the Act of June 20,1949, supra.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.