and go through the red light and was hit by a civilian car which was going east on Aliso with the green light in his direction."

The civilian driver, Mr. Marino Bello, made the following statement on May 12, 1942:

16* * * as I was driving my 1941 Ford coupe east on Aliso Street, I was stopped at Alameda for a signal. After the signal had changed to 'go' or green in my favor, the policeman had whistled and motioned for traffic to go across the street.

"I, Marino Bello, placed my car in gear and started across the street. When I was more than one-half way across the intersection, a United States Army jeep truck * * * came through the red light and against the policeman's signal and struck my car in the left side with such force that it caused the jeep to overturn completely.

"The jeep was traveling on the wrong side of the street and nearly struck the policeman. I did not see the jeep coming through, as traffic had stopped for the signal, until he entered the intersection. At that time it was too late for me to

do anything, as the truck was into my car.'

On March 9, 1942, A. R. McClanahan, the traffic policeman who was on duty at the intersection at the time the accident occurred, in answer to a questionnaire, stated:

"(1) Where were you at the time of collision?-A. Standing in center of pedestrian's cross walk, north side of Aliso Street at Alameda Street.

"(2) What first attracted your attention to the car involved in the accident?— A. Sound of the motor and speed of the Army jeep.

(3) In what direction was each vehicle traveling? A. Army jeep traveling south on Alameda Street, '41 Ford traveling east on Aliso Street.

"(4) How fast was each vehicle moving?-A. Army jeep, 40 to 45 miles per hour; '41 Ford, 6 to 8 miles per hour.

"(9) In your opinion, who was at fault? Why?-A. Army jeep. 1. Failed to obey yellow warning light and red stop light. 2. Failed to obey my arm signal and whistle to stop.

*

*

*

*

"(11) What was said by parties after the collision? A. Sergeant operating Army jeep said he did not see signal and thought he had right-of-way. Operator of '41 Ford complained of shock and pain in back.

"(12) State whether any signals or warnings were given and if so by whom and how far from the point of collision.-A. The Army jeep ran through red stop signal and disregarded my whistle and arm signal to stop. The entire responsibility for this accident rests on the sergeant operating the Army jeep. Operator of '41 Ford was in no manner responsible."

The report of the investigating officer, submitted in May 1942, states that the responsibility for the accident was "that of the civilian driver, as all evidence points to negligence on his part in not exercising due caution before entering intersection.'

The report also contains the following remarks:

"Statements of civilian driver at the scene of the accident do not coincide with his sworn statements made several weeks later. To wit, in his sworn statement he claims that the Army vehicle struck his car broadside, when the opposite was the case according to Government witnesses and the report of the traffic policeman at the intersection. Also, the garage bill shows repairs to the right rear fender of the claimant's car and attached diagram shows that such damage was impossible under the circumstances. Evidence seems to point to a previous or subsequent accident. Attention is called to the fact that witnesses' testimony for the claimant is made out on a prefabricated form."

It was the opinion of the investigating officer that "the accident was caused, in part at least, by the claimant's negligence. To wit, evidence seems to indicate that he did not wait for all north- and south-bound traffic on Alameda Street to clear before starting across the intersection, and the truck turning west into Aliso Street completely blocked his vision of any vehicle coming south on Alameda."

The board of officers which carefully investigated the accident made the following findings:

"Evidence indicates that (Army driver) had entered the intersection prior to the light (signal) changing to amber (warning light), that he was traveling at a legal and proper rate of speed, and in the proper lane of traffic. No definite evidence of negligence on the part of (Army driver) is apparent.

"It is felt by the board of officers that the claimant is at least partly at fault for failing to exercise proper caution before entering the intersection in that he did not wait for north- and south-bound traffic to clear, and evidence would indicate that the claimant also may have started into the intersection before the red signal light had turned to green.

"Attention is also called to the prefabricated form on which the sworn statement of Officer McClanahan is submitted and to the contradictions it makes to his statement on the police report made several weeks previously. This statement was sent in by the attorney of the claimant, although the letter requesting the statement was mailed directly to Mr. McClanahan."

Mr. Bello submitted to the War Department receipted bills indicating that the cost of repairing his automobile amounted to $150.72 and that he incurred the following medical expenses:

Louise Long, Beverly Hills, Calif. (physiotherapy).
Dr. Wilbur W. Mackenzie, Hollywood, Calif
Dr. J. W. Warren, Hollywood, Calif. (X-rays).

Total__

$195

78

35

308

It appears that Mr. Bello carried a $25 deductible collision insurance policy on his automobile with the Aetna Insurance Co., which paid $125.72 of the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle. Mr. Bello filed a claim with the War Department in the amount of $25 for property damage not covered by insurance, $5,000 for personal injuries, and $308 for medical expenses resulting from the accident. The Aetna Insurance Co., as subrogee, filed a claim for property damage (covered by insurance) in the amount of $125.72. After review in the War Department, these claims were disapproved on November 25, 1942, on the ground, amongst others, that the proximate cause of the accident was the combined negligence of the claimant and the Army driver.

Since the request for the submission of a report on S. 1483 was received the record in this case has been carefully reexamined, and it is the view of the War Department that the evidence fairly establishes that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Mr. Bello in that he proceeded into an intersection without first assuring himself that all vehicles already within the intersection had cleared and in carelessly striking the rear portion of the Army vehicle after it had almost passed through the intersection. The negligence of the Army driver, if any, was of a relatively slight degree. In view of Mr. Bello's negligence there is no responsibility on the part of the United States to compensate him for the damage sustained by him in this accident, and the War Department, therefore, is constrained to recommend that favorable consideration be not given to the proposed legislation.

The fiscal effect of the bill is manifest.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

AFFIDAVIT OF WILBUR W. MACKENZIE, M. D.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

County of Los Angeles, ss:

Wilbur W. MacKenzie, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That he is a physician and surgeon, duly licensed to practice in the State of California, with offices at 1110 Taft Building, Hollywood, Calif., and that he has been engaged in such practice for many years.

Affiant further states that on January 29, 1942, one Marino Bello was brought into affiant's office, for medical attention, by one Mr. Hightower, following an automobile accident occurring several hours prior to said visit. That said Marino Bello was unknown to your affiant at said time and had at no time prior thereto ever been a patient of affiant. Affiant further states that he made careful examination of Mr. Bello, and took X-rays of his spine, and found him to be in a badly injured condition and unable to walk without assistance. The X-rays taken included the ribs, dorsal and lumbar vertebrae, sacroiliac, and pelvic regions.

It was apparent from such examination that there was a considerable twisting of the spine. Affiant further states that he treated Mr. Bello continuously for a period of more than 3 months immediately following the injury and then treated him at intervals, and Mr. Bello is still under affiant's care. That affiant has done everything possible to make Mr. Bello comfortable, prescribing therapeutics and the wearing of a sacroiliac brace for support. That Mr. Bello is of the age of 60 years at this time, and at such age, in the opinion of affiant, an injury to the spine and sacroiliac of the nature suffered by Mr. Bello is of a permanent nature. WILBUR W. MACKENZIE, M. D.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of March 1944. [SEAL]

OLIVE M. BERREAU,

Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My commission expires August 6, 1944.

FEBRUARY 13, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. DICKSTEIN, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 9491

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 949) for the relief of Mrs. Mildred Ring, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventy-eighth Congress.

The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 1183, of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report.

(H. Rept. No. 1183, 78th Cong., 2d sess.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to merely waive the time limitation in favor of Mrs. Mildred Ring, who is alleged to have sustained injuries from undue exposures to low-temperature weather and to have sustained injuries to her back in line of duty while employed as a field matron in the Indian Service, Department of the Interior, and her claim for compensation on account of all resultant, currently existing disabilities considered and acted upon under the remaining provisions of such act.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Your committee recommend favorable consideration to the proposed legislation. Appended hereto are the reports of the Interior Department and the Employees' Compensation Commission, which are made a part of this report.

Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE,

Chairman, Committee on Claims,

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1944.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. MCGEHEE: Reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 2346, a bill for the relief of Mrs. Mildred Ring.

For the reasons hereinafter stated I recommend that this bill be given favorable consideration.

Mrs. Ring entered on duty as field matron in the Indian Service on March 30, 1926, and was assigned to the Carson Indian Agency in Nevada. She served in that position until June 30, 1929, when it became necessary to effect her separation because of her impaired physical condition. Thereafter she submitted a claim to the United States Employees' Compensation Commission for disability compensation, alleging that she had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis in the performance of her official duties. Her claim was allowed by the Commission. Subsequently, however, it appears that her condition improved to such an extent as to justify the Commission in making a substantial reduction in her compensation. Although her tuberculosis has reportedly been arrested, she is now suffering from severe arthritis in her legs and scoliosis, which have rendered her practically incapable of making a living. It is Mrs. Ring's contention that her present ailments are the result of exposures to cold weather and to back injuries which she suffered during the winters of 1927 and 1928 while she was employed at the Carson Agency. The winters in the area where Mrs. Ring worked are known to be quite severe. The records of the Department show that her duties during the period in question were arduous and required her to make frequent long automobile trips in very cold weather. There is no evidence of record that she complained of back injuries, but it is possible that she did suffer such injuries in her travels. In 1927 and 1928 the roads in the Carson jurisdiction were rough and unimproved, and it is undoubtedly a fact that anyone who performed much travel by automobile, especially in the wintertime, experienced considerable physical discomfort. In the circumstances, I believe that Mrs. Ring is entitled to have her case reviewed by the Employees' Compensation Commission.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised me that the enactment of this proposed legislation would not be in conflict with the program of the President if revised to eliminate lines 14, 15, and 16 of page 2 of the bill.

The bill

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the Commission's report upon the bill, H. R. 2846 for the relief of Mrs. Mildred Ring. provides:

"That sections 15 to 20, inclusive, of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide compensation for the employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes', approved September 7, 1916, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 5, secs. 767 and 770), are hereby waived in favor of Mrs. Mildred Ring, who is alleged to have sustained injuries from undue exposures to low temperature weather and to have sustained injuries to her back while en route between Reno and Pyramid Lake, Nevada, during the winter months of 1927-1928, in line of her duties while employed as a field matron in the Indian Service, Department of the Interior, and her claim for compensation on account of all resultant, currently existing disabilities considered and acted upon under the remaining provisions of such Act, as amended, if she files such claim with the United States Compensation Commission not later than sixty days after the date of enactment of this Act.

"SEC. 2. Any monthly compensation which the said Mrs. Mildred Ring may be found to be entitled to receive by reason of the enactment of this Act shall commence on the first day of the month during which this Act is enacted, or such earlier date as the Commission, upon evidence submitted, may determine Mrs. Mildred Ring to be otherwise entitled to receive such compensation."