June 30, 1960, 1961, and 1962.

eases were disposed of by 1,841 published opinions. 101 opinions were rendered in cases involving officers, 21 Air Force officers, 14 Navy officers, 3 Marine Corps officers, 2 Coast Guard officers, est Point cadet. In addition 19 opinions were rendered in cases involving 20 civilians. The r concerned enlisted personnel.

TEAGUE of Texas. Well, suppose we write the judicial review e same way. Then will you support it?

BRICKFIELD. No, because it comes back to a question of ophy, and it is really whether or not a person gets a fair trial, ou can get a fair trial, Mr. Teague, at the lowest level, and this re you do get the greatest good for the greatest number.

1 if a fellow gets a day in court, a day in court does not mean in a court of law. It means a day in court before an impartial al, and you put in your side of the case and put in anything ou can put in, and as you know, many veterans have little evithat would be admissible in a court of law, and they come into eterans' Administration and we take in everything they have to

nt.

1 they get a full and they get a complete hearing, and that is all he Constitution provides, that you get a fair and speedy trial. . TEAGUE of Texas. You have been General Counsel of the ans' Administration

- BRICKFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. And you have worked around here on the Judiciary Committee for years.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I am not a lawyer, but you have an organization somewhere in this judicial system that approves courts. Right? Mr. BRICKFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE of TEXAS. Do you know that they have approved this court and recommended it?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Yes, sir; and I am speaking from the top of my head, but you are talking about the Judicial Conference of the United States.

And for years and years they took no position on it and, in fact, I would say that they were against it until they were assured that this court would be outside the Federal court system, that is that their calendars, would not be congested; that there would be no appeal to the circuit courts of appeals or any appeal by way of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was only on that limited basis that they gave a "no objection" to it.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. You are talking from the top of your head and I am talking from the bottom of my feet. So I have no comment. Mr. GLEASON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that the time is running late

Mr. SAYLOR. Oh, no; we have lots of time.

Mr. GLEASON. Well, I believe, honestly, sir, that this is a difference of philosophy, and we think that our goal should be to aid and assist the veteran to prove his claim

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Well, you have still not convinced me that if we do this it would do more harm than good. That is the point I am talking about.

Mr. HALEY. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Administrator, while it may be different from your philosophy and the Department's and everything else, if the Congress sees fit to enact the law, why, you will do the best you can to carry it out, will you not?

Mr. GLEASON. If the law becomes-I should say, if the act becomes law, yes, sir.

Mr. HALEY. I think that is the answer to the whole thing.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Saylor?

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, I am interested because before I got back I understand my colleague, Mr. Kornegay, asked about the 29 pilot

cases.

Now, just to prove my point, I would like to ask what happened to that 30th pilot case, because I think it points out just what this committee was faced with last year when we asked for an independent medical review.

Now, Mr. Administrator, you correct me if I am wrong.

When you asked for an independent medical review and it was in favor of the veteran what did you do? Instead of taking the advice of the independent medical expert you sent it out and asked for another one.

In other words, the philosophy of some of the people who are down there under you is that they feel that it is their duty and bound obli

ion to do everything they can to prevent a man from getting vice-connected disability.

Mr. GLEASON. Congressman, may I ask that Mr. Farmer—— rt, will you answer that?

Mr. FARMER. As to the 30th case, sir?

believe that is true, that it is now pending. We have not seen results by a review of three independent

Mr. SAYLOR. Oh, but you sent it out and asked for one that was in or of the veteran?

Mr. FARMER. This, I do not recall as being true.

Mr. SAYLOR. I think if you will go back and check the records, and t is wrong I will permit you to correct the record, you will find Et the one was in favor of the veteran and somebody down there ided that this was a bad thing.

The poor veteran got a break in this case and you turned around sent it back to three doctors to see if there was not something t you could do to keep him from getting it.

Mr. FARMER. Congressman, these 30 cases, as we were discussing lier, sir, these were not cases that had all been before the Board Veterans' Appeals.

These were 30 cases that had been selected before they went to the ard of Veterans' Appeals as test cases.

Is that not correct, Mr. Kornegay?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, I understood to the contrary but

Mr. GLEASON. And this case had not been, and has not yet been, ore the Board of Veterans' Appeals incident to the test. Mr. FARMER. That is true. That is right.

Mr. GLEASON. We were trying to find out by this process how it uld stack up, and test these cases going to the Chief Medical rector and independent medical experts, and we discussed all 29 h the exception of this one, but I do want to point out to you that s was not a case that had been before the Board of Veterans' peals and it has not been there yet incident to this study.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, I want you to check the record and find out ether or not you do not have an independent medical expert who d it was service connected and then you turned around and sent it t to three other doctors.

Mr. Patterson?

COUNSEL. Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify this:

This is Mr. Dorn's case.

It involves the case that Mr. Dorn sent the committee. This case had been turned down by the Veterans nefits' Office here in Washington.

At Mr. Dorn's request the chairman submitted it to the Administor with a request for an independent medical review—

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. A little louder, please.

COUNSEL. Thereafter I was told that the IME decision was favorle.

The Chief Medical Director ruled, for reasons which I do not know, favorably.

Thereafter the case was sent to the Harvard Medical School. Two the three Harvard IME's were favorable, but for different reasons om the first IME.

Mr. GLEASON. That is right, but this was one of the test cases and

went to acein point out ཀླ

cossmen Sexlor that this was not o

case that had been to the Board of Veterans' Appeals after the VBO decision mentioned by Mr. Patterson.

And we had mentioned earlier that 7 of the 30 cases were favorable by both the Chief Medical Director and the independent medical. We had three that were independent medical favorable and four chief medical.

Now, we sent this case to an independent medical expert, got his opinion which was favorable, and we asked the Chief Medical Director for his opinion.

These are tests. We sent one first to the independent medical expert before sending it to the Chief Medical Director or we could have done it vice versa, but we did do it this way.

In this case both of these decisions came in, and there was a difference of opinion, and then I directed that we send it to the Harvard Medical School, which is the finest medical school in the United States.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, I think your New England influence is showing right now.

Questions propounded; opinion; comments (if any)

Chief Medical Director

Questions: "Your conclusions and
opinions would be appreciated as to:
"(a) The correct diagnosis of the
cardiovascular condition found in
January 1955.

"(b) The correct diagnosis of the
cardiovascular condition found on
examinations in June 1955 and March
and October 1960.'

Opinion: "It is my opinion after a
review of the records that no cardio-
vascular disease is present in January
1955, in June 1955, or in March 1960.
The possibility of essential (primary)
hypertension appears in the latest
examination of October 1960."

Questions: "(a) Does the evidence
establish a malignant condition in
service? If so, when, and what is the
diagnosis?

"(b) Does the evidence establish a
malignant genitourinary condition
after service? If so, when, and what is
the diagnosis?

"(c) Was the diagnostic impression
by biopsy on Oct. 21, 1946, of epider-
moid papillary carcinoma correct?
If not, what was the correct diagnosis?

"(d) Is the veteran's malignant thy-
moma associated with or related to
the bladder papillomas in this case?

"(e) In response to the above, will you please indicate the basis for each conclusion?"

Independent medical expert

Question: "What is the correct
diagnosis of the cardiovascular condi-
tion found in January and June of
1955 and in March and October of
1960?"

Opinion: "The prominence of the
pulmonary artery and the right ven-
tricle in the preenlistment films and
the chronic nature of his symptoms,
in my opinion, are definite findings
that indicate that the findings existed
prior to his service. *** In my opin-
ion there is a strong possibility that
they represent pulmonary hyperten-
sive cardiovascular disease, probably
primary pulmonary hypertension
which probably existed before his
entry into the service. His sympto-
matology which he elicited following
the service is that which one expects
in the natural history of this condi-
tion and there is nothing in his his-
tory or records that would indicate
that there was any specific incident
in the service which would be con-
sidered as aggravating this condition.
Same questions asked.

Opinion: (a) The answer to question
"would of necessity be yes. On mak-
ing this statement, I am fully cogni-
zant of the fact that there is no patho-
logical diagnosis of such a condition in
the patient's record, and I am basing
my answer on the cystoscopic findings
of the physician who on Sept. 27, 1945,
reported multiple bladder papilloma
which he treated by fulguration. *
Undoubtedly these papilloma were
noninfiltrating papilloma tumors.
The noninfiltrating papilloma found
in the urinary bladder are usually
classified as benign microscopically.
These tumors, in my opinion, repre-
sent the earliest neoplastic changes of a

Current status

Concurrence in pro-
posed severance.

Concurrence in sever-
ance of service connec-
tion. (This is only on
the basis of the present
facts and is not determin-
ative as to service connec-
tion in the event of any
subsequent malignant
bladder development or
change.)

ום.