Amicus Curiae Brief — Richardson v. Belcher

INDEX

on tot Page

Interest re re ee: ee ee ee 1

The Nature of Workmen’ s Compensation in the United

OURLOE: aiiencu nee Cy eee sss ee OER EES S Oars 3,

The eons of the Social Security” Laws To In-

clude Disability ON ON Nf 565. 63% sah eaten « Pei rnreainss i)

The Need for the Offset Beovisioil Lehecvesccseeeeee Wf

The Offset Provision Is Crucial to the Success of

State Rehabilitation Programs ................. 7

The Offset Provision Maximizes the Incentive to.

States To Improve Their Benefit Structures ..... 11

| . The Offset Provision Contributes Toward Mainte-

nance of sad Responsibility .............. 13

Conclusion Rieti aaas ea eeae sabe nees , errs .. 140

% ;

| ‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Gises : :

Bartley, et a v. Richardson, No. 703, O.T. 1970, Su-

preme Court-of the United States ...........0... 3

Hurtado v. CF &I Steel Corporation, — Colo. —, 449.

P.2d 819 aie re te Mivkteeasoeeseysveees 12

STATUTES: -

Act of August 1, 1956, Pub. L. No, 84-880, § 103, 70

NT BS oes hone neers eee res sheng eees ts 5 -

Act. of Augusf 28, 195 ub. L. No. 85-840, § 206, 72

IAG, FOS0 ei cean stg tpncesde vciedcvtnsnsneses 5

N.Y. Workmer’s< Compensation Law § 15(c)(v)

| RCRInaEy jb) ae a a

ii | , Index Continued

Page

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,

Se eT er rr 14

“Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1965 Perm. Supp..

C.B.S.1963, 81-12-1(4) 2... gece ec cece cece eens 12

42-U.S.C. § 402 .......... gis ssadeeeleuees Aes teaaae 5

42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(B) ......... 0. eee eee, wees +6

$2 UC. 5 900 ees cece nes pense pn ceneanonens 6

MISCELLANEOUS:

ANALYSIS OF WORKMEN’S CoMPENSATION Laws (Cham-"

ber of Commerce of the United States 1971) ..3;5, 7, 13

Kup & BALL, Casualty INSURANCE (Ronald Press Co.

1968) sans Seoerheseeveneues ss eee wiewe eae ness 8, 14

Lane, WorKMEN’s COMPENSATION INSURANCE MonopoLy

oR FREE .CoMPETITION? (Richard D. Irwin, Ine.

1947) ....... Su cee seus cas esa edb eee yee anes ees 3

Report of the Rehabiligation Committee, late raational

Association of Industrial Accident Boards*.and

Commissions (U.S. Bureau of Labor Standards,

Bulletin 142) .........eccececcdececcuveuceuces Io

Research and Statistics Note No. 21, 1970 (US.

Department of : Health, Education and Welfare,

; Noveniber yA LL) ge 7

S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., Ist Sess. 1 U. 8. Code |

Cong. € Ad. News 2040 (1965) ......-...0.. via 6

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1970 ©

No. 1091 -

- Exuior L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education

and Welfare, Appellant,

V.

' RayMonD BELCHER

On Appeal From the United States District Court for the

Southern . District of West Virginia

BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE

ALLIANCE, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION

AND THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE

COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDS

AS. AMICI CURIAE

: Pas |

LF INTEREST |

This brief amici curiae.is filed by the American Mu-

tual Insurance Aliance (AMIA), the American Insur-

ance Association (AIA),.and the American Association

of State Compensation Insurance Funds (AASCIF),

with the consent of the parties, as provided in Rule 42

of the Court’s Rules.

>.

2

AMIA is an association of over 100 property and

casualty insurance companies.’ Together they write

almost one billion dollars annually in-workmen’s com-

pensation insurance. This constitutes approximately

29 percent of the private workmen’s compensation in

the United States and represents almost 30 percent of

their total property and liability insurance business.

ATA is also an association of over 100 property and

casualty insurance companies. These companies write

approximately .$1.2 billion of workmen’s compensation

insurance annually. This constitutes 35 percent of the

private workmen’s compensation in the United States

- and represtnts approximately 15 percent of their total ~

property and liability insurance business.

AASCIF is the association of state. workmen’s com-

pensation insuranee funds. Such state-created and

state-administered funds presently exist in 18 states

and represent approximately $850 million in insurance |

premiums annually. In six of these states, the state

fund is ‘‘exclusive’’ (t.e., employers are required.in ,

those states to insure their risks in the fund). In the

remaining 12:states, the funds are ‘‘competitive”’ (7.e.,_

employers may elect to insure in the state fund, with

a. private insurance company, or to qualify as self-

insurers). The state funds in all 18 states are members

of AASCIF. hr

These associations and the companies which they rep-

resent are vitally concerned with the satisfactory oper- -

ation of the nation’s compensation system. They are

interested in all matters affecting workmen’s compen-

sation and social. security, since they believe it is im-

portant that the two systems be coordinated so that a

proper development of each not be impeded. They

3

particularly want to insure that workmen’s compensa-

tion laws continue to provide full and adequate pro-

tection and rehabilitation to those who are the victims

of work-related disability.

As a result of their interest and long experience in

this area, they are uniquely able’to assist the Court by

_ discussing the significance of Section 224 of the Social

Security Act and the reasons why, from the point of

view of the industry most intimately concerned, .it is

both reasonable and essential to the proper working.

of state workmen’s’ compensation systems.! It is their

position that the decision below, if allowed to stand,

will genpaniiee attainment of this eve

THE NATURE OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

IN THE UNITED STATES

Workmen’s compensation laws have existed in the

United States for some 60 years as an outgrowth of

the inadequacies of the common law. They have now

been adopted by all states and the District of Columbia

and are basically similar in concept, scope and oper-

ation.

Common to all these laws is the elimination of fault

ag the basis of liability. The workman | or his family

1 This brief will not discuss the authorities considered. at jength

in the Jurisdictional Statement and Brief of the United States

herein and in the Motion to Affirm, filed by the United States

in Bartley, et al. v. Richardson, No. 703, O.T. 1970. We endorse’

the position of the United States on the constitutional issues as

set forth therein.

2See generally, LANG, WoRKMEN’s COMPENSATION: TusuRiNcE:

~ Monopory or FREE CoMPETITION?, 3-10 (Richard D. Irwin, Ine.

1947) ; ANALYSIS OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION Laws, 3: (Chamber

of Commerce of the United States 1971).

4

is indemnified, regardless of fault, for injuries or death

arising out of employment. The benefits include medi-

eal and hospital care, usually unlimited in time and

amount, periodic payments to replace wages, and re-

habilitation. In - essence, -workmen’s . compensation

laws hold that employers should assume the costs of

occupational, disabilities and that the resulting eco-

‘nomic losses should be considered costs of production.

The enactment of workmen’s compensation was an

important step forward in the protection of employees.

For the employee, it eliminated the uncertainties of liti-

gation, increased his financial security, and erased the

-employer’s defenses of contributory negligence, as-

sumption of risk and the fellow-servant rule. It pro-

vided employers with a much-needed method of dealing

with the financial hazards and uncertainfies of occu-

pational imjuries,

The United States Chamber of Commerce has pointed

to six basic objectives of workmen’s compensation laws:

1. Provide sure, prompt and reasonable income

and medical benefits to work-accident victims, or

income benefits to their dependents, regardless of

fault; |

_ 2, Provide a angle remedy and dedines court de-

lays, costs and work Joads—arising out of- per-

sonal injury litigation; .

3. Relieve public and private charities of Anan:

cial drains—incident to uncompensated industrial |

accidents ;

4. Eliminate payments of fees to lawyers and-

witnesses as well as time-consuming trials and

appeals ;

5. Encourage maximum - suaployer interests in

safety and rehabilitation—through appropriate ~

experience rating mechanisms ; and

~-

o

6. Promote frank study of causes of accidents

(rather than concealment of fault)—reducing pre-

ventable accidents and human suffering. ‘LANALY-

SIs OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION Laws, 3 (Cham-

ber of Commerce of the United States 1971). ] |

Most laws. require employers to meet their work-

men’s compensation obligations either by insurance or

by proving their financial capacity to act as self-in-

. Surers. Some laws permit or require employers to ac-

quire insurance through state-established funds. Pen-

-alties are imposed for failure to provide: required

coverage. - | 7

THE EXPANSION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS

TO. INCLUDE DISABILITY BENEFITS

The original Social Security Act of 1935 did not

provide for disability benefits. In 1956, Congress

amended the law to provide for payment of benefits to

those who were permanently and totally disabled and

had attained the age of 50 but had not reached 65. Act

of August 1, 1956, Pub. L. No. 84-880, § 103, 70 Stat.

848. The social security benefit payable to such an

individual was reduced, however, by the amount of

any periodic benefit payable to the recipient under a

workmen’s compensation law. Id: . —

This offset provision was repealed in 1958. Act of

August 28, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-840, § 206, 72 Stat.

1025. After two years’ experience under the offset

provision, Congress concluded that the provision could

be eliminated since at that time there did not appear —

to be any serious duplication of benefits. At the same a

time, Congress further liberalized: social security dis-

ability payments by providing benefits for dependents -

of disabled persons. 42 U.S.C. § 402. Congress again

i a aa a eo

\

\

\

Sha SY AMPA ARR La et AL PE Sg SEIMEI EEG AE ir LAA L ETA EF PEN aR

| 6

expanded the range of beneficiaries in 1960 by eliminat-

ing the age 50 requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a) (1) (B).

Jn 1965, Congress reinstated the workmen’s compen-

sation offset provision, but in a form different from the

1956 version. 42 U.S.C. §424a. The 1956 provision

required an offset of social security payments equal to

the amount of workmen’s compensation received. The

1965 provision required only that combined social

security and workmen’s compensation benefits could

not exceed 80-percent of the ‘‘average current earn-

ings’’ credited to the worker’s social security account . —

before disability. In adopting this provision, the Sen-

ate Finance Committee observed that it had ‘‘taken

note of the concern that has been expressed by many

witnesses in the hearings about the payment of dis-

ability benefits concurrently with benefits payable un-

der State workmen’s compensation programs.’’ S.

Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., Ist Sess. 1 U.S. Code Cong.

& Ad. News 2040 (1965). The Committee found that

it was ‘‘desirable as a matter of sound principle to

prevent the payment of excessive combined benefits.”’

Id. Under the new provision, a worker’s benefits

would never be reduced ‘‘below the amount of the un-

reduced monthly social security benefits.”? Id.

Moreover; in order to overcome the effect of inflation

in wage levels and living costs, the offset provision now

requires periodic automatic redetermination of ‘‘aver-

age current earnings.’’ Jd. at 2200. As a result, when

wages and, living costs increase, the amount of social .

security benefits to be offset is reduced or eliminated.

Thus, the disabled worker is able to maintain the

‘same standard of benefits. In addition, the level of

- disability benefits automatically increases with every

basic social security increase.

oe - 7 ; °

At the start of 1970, 1,410, 900 disabled workers and

their 1,151,000 dependents were receiving petal secur-

ity disability benefits.* —

THE NEED FOR THE OFFSET PROVISION

The offset is “crucial to the success of rehabilitation

programs under state laws, to the continuation of vig-

orous employer safety programs, and to the continu-

ance and improvement of state workmen’s compensa-

tion laws.

The Offset Provision Is Crucial to the Success of State

Rehabilitation Programs

A characteristic of all state workmen’s compensa-

tion programs is provision for worker rehabilitation.‘

Rehabilitation has .been defined as the ‘‘restoration of -

the handicapped workman to the fullest physical, men-

tal, social, vocational and economic usefulness of which

he is capable. .

Historically, the state workmen’s compensation sys-

tems have provided the principal impetus for disabled

worker rehabilitation. The AIA, AMIA, their mem-

ber companies and the AASCIF have been leaders in

7 developing rehabilitation programs and in urging more

advanced state legislation in the area. In fact, the first

_ clinics used exclusively for the’ physicial restoration of

3 Research and Statistics Note. No. 21, 1970 (U. S. Department of

Health, Education and’ Welfare, November 23, 1970).

‘ Thirty-six states provide by statute for some form of rehabili-

. tation. However, aecording to the Chamber of Commerce of the

United States, ‘‘rehabilitation is provided in all ‘states even if un-

specified in the law.’’ ANALYSIS or WORKMEN’s COMPENSATION

Laws, supra, at 7, 30-31.

5 Report of the Rehabilitation Coeniies, International Assocta-

tion of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, 170 (US.

Bureau of Labor Standards, Bulletin 142)

eR tal PR AOR NIB UR Ob MOR wing Te a EOE Wes

Yiegs 08 VO iL es Liaeee: toa ee Ne

4 BRA adc Ha de Col

or

Fak Rated A re: ve LOOM Cae Se

8

| er in the United States were eeeouenen by work-

“ men’s compensation insurance carriers.’

Rehabilitation gives the disabled worker the oppor-

tunity to regain his economic and social utility by re-

turning to the ranks of the wage earners. “It is equally

important to employers, not only because of the ad-

vantages of restoring trained workers to their jobs,

but also because the savings resulting from properly

administered rehabilitation programs are passed on to

employers in the form of reduced workmen’s compen-.

sation rates. This results in a built-in incentive. for

’ both employers and their insurance carriers to maxi- -

mize rehabilitation efforts. |

Based upon their experience under the earlier pro-

visions of the social security laws, the AIA, AMIA ©

and AASCIF are convinced that the absence of an off-

set acts as a deterrent to the rehabilitation of a dis-

abled worker. Their experience has demonstrated that

which common sense suggests is true: efforts to moti-

vate a disabled worker receiving through disability pay-

ments as much money as or more money than he had

previously earned through working are frequently nn-

successful.

Under the existing levels of social seenrity and

workmen’s compensation benefits, the lack of an offset

provision will result in combined benefits in excess of

average weekly take-home pay in 48 of 51 jurisdictions.

As the following table demonstrates, only in three juris-

dictions are combined social security and workmen’s

compensation benefits less than or equal to average

weekly benefits—Alaska, 81%; California, 97%; and ~

Ohio, 997% ..

®Kuutp & Hau, Casualty INSURANCE, 235 (Ronald Press. Co,

1968).

- Nebraska

/

* ‘Combined » ;

Workmen’s Workmen’s |

Average Weekly Compensation Compensation and Combined Benefits

Take Home -Maximum Social Security as Percentage of

Jurisdiction ~ Pay (a) Weekly Benefit (>) Benefits (c) Take-home Pay

Alabama $ 87.77 $ £u.90 $112.08 128%

Alaska 179.26 82.55 144.63 81%

Arizona 113.24 152.50 214.58 189%

Arkansas 84.81 49.00. 111.08 131%

California 118.21 52.50 114.58 97%

Colorado - 102.21 59.50 121.58 119%

“Connecticut ——-111.39 ~ 80.00 142.08 127%

Delaware 98.93 75.00 137.08 138%

Dist. of Col. 105.34 70.00 132.08 125%

Florida 94.61 56.00 118.08 125%

Georgia 91.61 50.00 112.08 122% :

Hawaii 118.40 112.50 174.58 147%

Idaho 106.49 99.00 161.08. 151%

Illinois 112.73 71.00 " 133.08 118%

Indiana 103.11 57.00 119.08 115%

Towa 100.94 56.00 118.08 117%

Kansas 101.02 56.00 118.08 117%

Kentucky 96.05 52.00 114.08 119% x

Louisiana 102.02 49.00. 111.08 109%

Maine. 90.79 73.00 135.08 149%

Maryland 102.10 85.00: 147.08 144%

“Massachusetts 108.12 88.00 150.08 139% ©

Michigan 119.35 104.00 166.08 139%

Minnesota 104.22 70.00 132.08 127%

. Mississippi 84.15 40.00 102.08 - 121%

Missouri 101.33 52.00 120.08 - 118%

Montana 113.35 65.00 127.08 112% .

98.13 55.00 117.08 119% |

10

, .

: | Combined

Workmen’s Workmen’s :

Average Weekly Compensation Compensation and Combined Benefits

Yes ; Take Home - Maximum Social Security as Percentage of.

‘ Jurisdiction = ‘Pay (a) Weekly Benefit (>) Benefits (¢) Take-home Pay

Nevada. | 114.53 66.46 - | 128.94 112%

‘New Hampshire 97.43 67.00 129.08" 132%

New Jersey 102.90 91.00 _ - 153.08 , = 149%,

‘New Mexico 102.58 - 48.00 ° 110.08 107%

New York — 105.82 80.00 . 142.08 134%

North Carolina 88.50 50.007 112.08 27%

- North Dakota 94.22 94.00 156.08 166% |

Ohio 119,20 56.00 ~ °° 118.08 99%

Oklahoma «93.98: —s- 49.00 —S—~*é«S'1 8.08 118% ~

Oregon 114.50 62.50 124.58 109% = =

Pennsylvania 10543 °. 60.00. ~ 122.08 ~ 116%

Rhode Island 101.49 82.00 _ 144.08. 142%

South Carolina 87.07 50.00: > 112.08. - 129%

South Dakota 93.36 30.00 11208 * 120%

Tennessee 89.48 47.00 — 109.08 22%

Texas 105.01. | 49.00 ~ 11108 - . 106%

Utah 100.22 65.00 ~~ 127.08 127%

Vermont 98.23 61.00 123.08 125%

Virginia 93:30 62.00. "124.08 133%

Washington 117.40 ~ 123 ~~ 14831 ——:1228%

West Virginia 113.40. 65.50 ~ 127.58 112%

Wisconsin 101.13 79.00 141.08 =. 139%

Wyoming © _—95.53 63.46 125.54 131%

2

eee) Average weekly wages less federal income and social security taxa (four dedustions).

Based upon wages of employees to whom compensation paid. National Council on Com-

pensation Insurance, December 1969.

(b) Ag of December 1970. Includes maximum. allowance for dependents, except in Massa-

chusetts, Utah, Vermont and owas where benefits for additional dependents may be

paid. . ; .

(c) Compensation benefits based upon a worker with a wife and two children. Social security ©

benefits based upon average family monthly benefit as of December 1970 ‘of $269. 00, or

$62.08 average ps benefit. Source—Social Security Administration, U. S. Department

of Health, Educ&tion and Welfare. . ¢ :

7

11

&t id . ° Pa - -

; / ;

_ THese computations, it should be noted, do net in-

cludé medical payments, which aré in addition to the

wage replacement benefits, nor do they reflect the fact

that workmen’s compensation and social security bene-

fits 4re not subject to taxatiqm:.

Congress enacted the offset proyision in 1965 in order

to restoresome incentive toward rehabilitation. At the

‘same time, Congress was liberal in its allowance so that

the disabled worker would receive substantially what

he had received from working.. In addition, Congress

-proyided for regular adjustment of the offset level so

that benefits*would keep pace with wages and the cost

of living. Under these circumstances, the offset provi-

sion is a mare than reasonable method of providing the,

essential incentive for rehabilitation. a v.

The Offset Provision Maximizes the iacenlies to States To

Improve Their Benefit Structures. \

<-Mitwaeh sophisticated employers are ‘willing’ to ac-

cept reasonable higher compensation costs to insvre

that their employees will receive adequate suppott

when injured, ‘they are demanding greater efficiency .

in the beyefit distribution mechanism. When duplica-

- tion of benefits occurs, there-is reluctance to- ‘upgrade:

state workmen’s compensation laws. a, NO.

Workmen’s compensationaws in a number of states

still lag in their benefit levels. Many individuals and

groups have been working to improve these levels, and” -

while such efforts have met with considerable’ success,

_ continued improvement i is necessary to keep pace with

increases in the cost of living and improved wage |

seales. . a

. There are specific examples of the ay in which

social security benefits reduce the pregsures on the

. - = ry |

\

-“

12

’ states to provide full workmen’s compensation benefits.

For instance, since 1958, the year the offset provision

was repealed, nine states increased benefits for tem-

porary total disability (for which there-is no social ©

security coverage), but did not increase benefits for

permanent total disability (for which there may be

social security coverage).® ,It is significant that five of

these nine jurisdictions fir st enacted this différential in

1959, the year-following repeal of the original offset :

provision. Two states reduce workmen’s compensation.

benefits when social security benefits. are payable.® .

\

-Widow’s benefits provide a further illustration of.

the chilling effect of social security. Workmen’s com- —

8 Permanent, Temporary — Original Year

° P—Total Disability Total Disability. - of Enactment

~ State Benefit Benefit ' . of Difference

Alaska $73.45 . —- $127.00 1959

California ——+552.50 87.50 1959

Illinois. 71.00 91.00 1965

Iowa . 56.00 : 6h00 1959...

Missouri 58.00. 63.50 | 1959

Montana —_—60.00 After first 65.00 ~ 1969.

_ 26 weeks of .

oo - disability os = % gy +

New York —_80.00 95.00 1968

‘Ohio 56.00 63.00 Payable for 1967

first 12 weeks

@ a _ | __ of disability

Oregon >i. — a | 80.00—(asi‘ ;*#«z

®In New York, benefits may be awarded for loss of earnings in

‘addition tp loss of function—but these additional benefits are offset

by 50% of any social security benefits [N.Y. Workmen’s Compen-

sation Law § 15(c)¢v) (McKinney 1970)]. The Supreme Court -

-of Colorado has construed the-Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1965

Perm: Supp. C.R.S. 1963,°81-12-1(4), to allow an employer to re-

duce payments under that Act when the employee becomes eligible

for benefits under tha Social Security Act. Hurtado v. CF&I .-

—

Steel Corporation, — Colo. —, 449 P.2d 819 (1969).

c

; 13°

pensation laws have been criticized because of inade-

quate provisions for survivor benefits for widows and

-children.”” The lag in this area is easily traceable to

_ the fact that the widows and children are entitled to

- social security benefits, so there is no-ineentive to ex-

tend workmen’s compensation benefits to them.

' Despite such limitations, workmen’s compensation

laws afford far broader protection than social security

forey worker injuries. It is the workers as a group who

_ will’be the ultimate losers if improvements in work-

men’s compensation benefits and coverage are dis-

couraged. Tne decision below, unless reversed, will

have precisely that effect. It could, we believe, con-

tribute to the eventual demise of the workmen’s com-

pensation system.

The Offset Provision Contributes Toward Maintenance of

Employer Responsibility

Workmen’s compensation insurance is paid for by

the employer, while social security contributions are

made by both employer and employee. Thus, if social

security assumes a greater proportion of disability:

compensation, the burden of providing for the injured

workman will shift from employer to employee. Aside

from its undesirable economic implications, this poses

serious concern for job. safety.

Because of the gearing of insurance premium costs

to claim experience, the existence of workmen’s com-_

pensation ‘has given significant impetus to industrial -

10 See ANALY IS OF WorkMEN’ s COMPENSATION Laws, supra, at

26- 27.

14

safety in the United States," A reduction in accidents

in a manufacturing plant serves to decrease the em-

ployer’s insurance costs. However, if social security

assumes a greater share of the disability benefit burden

and the level of workmen’s compensation is reduced,

the significance of insurance cost is correspondingly

reduced and, with it, the incentive for the development

of vigorous and effective job safety programs.”

CONCLUSION

The foregoing demonstrates the reasonableness of

Congress’ determination to readopt an offset provision

to prevent excessive duplication of social security and

workmen’s compensation disability benefits. This pro-

vision strengthens the effectiveness of the state laws

and prevents a negation of their goal of rehabilitation.

Congress saw the wisdom of maintaining strong state-

_ level programs and recognized that the proportion of

' federal benefits should |.» sufficiently restrainéd to

insure that these programs not be. weakened nor their

purposes frustrated.

11 The National Safety Council computes that the frequency of

industrial accidents. has experienced a significant reduction which

parallels the expansion of effective workmen’s compensation laws.

In 1926 the industrial accident. frequency rating was 31.87. By

1965 this was reduced to 6.53. In addition, the severity rate also

dropped during that time from 2,500 man days per. 1,000,000 man

hours of employment to 689 man Sod _ Casualty INSURANCE,

supra, at 172-173. 7

12 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, — Stat, —,

established the National Commission on State Workmen’ S Laws.

The Commission is required to study and report to the President

by July 31, 1972, concerning, among other things, the ‘‘relation-

ship between workmen’s compensation on the one hand, and old

age, disability, and survivors insurance and other types of insur-

ance, public or private, on the other hand”’ iBection 27(d) (1)

. (O)].

15

The present offset results in no inequity. In addi-

tion to medical payments (including rehabilitation),

the permanently disabled worker receives wage replact-

ment benefits that approximate the take-home wage

pay which he earned before his injury. Additionally,

through automatic adjustments, these benefits increase

with inflation and can result in benefits beyond the

pre-injury wage. The offset is not only reasonable

but necessary.

Therefore, we urge that the Court Giant the prayer

of the United States and reverse the judgment of the

court below.

- Respectfully submitted,

‘WILuiaM KE. Miner

RicHarD A. WHITING

James L. McHveu, Jr.

STEPTOE & JOHNSON |

1250 Conecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Of Counsel:

Srepror & JOHNSON

1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

- Washington, D.C. 20036

April 15, 1971.