9. Certificate of disability-Continued.

(k) Adverse, overcomes presumption of prior soundness-when-Cont'd. sufficient to overcome the presumption of prior soundness, but as fully establishing the facts therein stated until overthrown. by unquestionable evidence. William Banner (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 346.

A statement in the certificate of discharge that the disability on account of which the soldier was discharged existed prior to enlistment not only outweighs the presumption of prior soundness, or the claimant's allegation thereof, but satisfactorily establishes the fact until the same is clearly disproved. Daniel Bidlake (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 3 P. D., 27.

Claimant served from January 5, 1888, to June 12, 1889, when he was discharged on a surgeon's certificate of disability, in which it was stated that he was an imbecile and had been unfit for duty ever since joining the troop to which he belonged, and that his disability existed prior to enlistment. It is held that said certificate of discharge not only outweighs the presumption of prior soundness or the claimant's allegations thereof, but satisfactorily establishes the facts stated in such certificate until the same are clearly disproved. Hilliard Preston (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D.,

(1) But other evidence may establish soundness, notwithstanding.

The testimony of two physicians, testifying from personal knowledge, that the claimant was a sound and healthy man at the time of enlistment, is entitled to more consideration, as affecting the rights of this claimant, than the presumptive evidence (uncorroborated) of the surgeon who gave the certificate for discharge some eight months after enlistment, stating such disability was contracted prior to enlistment, and especially so in view of the evidence of comrades that the claimant contracted, about seven months after enlistment, a severe cold which resulted in the disability for which he was discharged. Andrew Wilson (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 1 P. D. (o. s.), 404.

A certificate of disability, not made by parties who can reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the facts therein certified to, should in all cases be supported by corroborative parol evidence before it can be accepted as establishing the facts; and where such certificate is made by parties who must have had personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein, it should be regarded as merely prima facie true, only to be overthrown by very clear evidence of a contrary character. James Gillespie (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 2 P. D. (0. s.), 158.

9. Certificate of disability-Continued.

(1) But other evidence may establish soundne.s, notwithstanding-Cont'd. A certificate of disability for discharge should not be held to be uncontrovertible evidence, even where it purports to show the origin of the disability prior to enlistment, unless it appear that the surgeon signing the same had personal knowledge of the fact certified to by him; and as three physicians testify in this case, from personal knowledge, as to prior soundness, and it is shown that the disability for which the soldier was discharged (rheumatism) has existed continuously since discharge, it is held that the certificate of disability for discharge, in which the examining surgeon states the soldier "says he has been subject for years" to rheumatism, is valueless as evidence of the origin of the disability, and the fact the claimant's statement referred to is shown to have been false, does not prejudice his pension claim. Montsier Wheeler (Sec. Chandler), 3 P. D. (o. s.), 341.

While great caution should be taken in accepting parol evidence, filed several years after an alleged incurrence, to controvert an adverse record, yet the weight to be given such testimony must depend largely upon the nature and character of the disability; and where the alleged disability (as in this case, disease of eyes) is stated in the certificate of disability at discharge to have been due to an anteservice cause, is not obscure, but of such a nature as to be apparent to the most casual observer, and reputable witnesses who were in such a position as to have personal knowledge of the facts testify to prior soundness, and the alleged disability is incompatible with the nature of the soldier's employment, said certificate should not be accepted as sufficient to overcome the presumption of prior soundness. Robinson W. Smith (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 4 P. D., 40.

While it is usual and safest to adhere to the ruling heretofore made, that the statement as to prior unsoundness contained in a certificate of disability for discharge not only outweighs the presumption of soundness but establishes the facts contained therein until disproved, yet when there seems to be a preponderance of evidence strongly in favor of the theory of soundness and adverse to the record, it must be held to controvert the record, and the soldier be given the benefit thereof. Jonathan M. Rich (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 4 P. D., 371.

(m) When adverse certificate is sufficient to justify rejection.

Certificate of disability based upon admission of claimant that disability existed at a period prior to date of enlistment is sufficient ground for rejection of application for pension. Charles Coates (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 170.

9. Certificate of disability-Continued.

(m) When adverse certificate is sufficient to justify rejection-Continued. Where soldier was discharged on certificate of disability, signed by officers of his company and regiment, stating that probably the disability for which he was discharged had its origin prior to enlistment, as he had been unfit for duty all the time he had been in the service, which certificate was corroborated by testimony elicited on special investigation: Held, That claim for pension based upon disease alleged to have been contracted in the service, and for which he was discharged, should be rejected. George W. Dixon (Sec. Schurz), 7 P. D. (0. s.), 149.

Claimant having failed to prove by officers and comrades that he was injured in the service, as alleged, the certificate of the assistant surgeon of his regiment, on which he was discharged, that such injury was incurred prior to enlistment, justifies rejection of claim. Jeremiah Smith (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 37.

Soldier, after having served but three months, was dis charged on a surgeon's certificate of disability on account of piles, which certificate states that such disease existed four or five years prior thereto: Held, That as said record has not been disproved, the rejection of the claim for pension on account of said disease, on the ground that the same was not incurred in the service, was proper. John Hobart (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 122.

Where surgeon's certificate of discharge certifies to soldier's prior unsoundness, and the presumption that such certificate was correct is unrebutted, a claim is not established. of Henry Betz (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 124.

Widow

(n) Two certificates, one nearest enlistment taken as to prior soundness. Where there are two surgeons' certificates of disability for discharge, the finding of the one whose date is nearer the date of enlistment will be accepted to determine whether or not the disability existed prior to claimant's army service. Edward Balmot (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 231.

10. Certificates of examination not evidence.

Examining surgeons' certificates are not evidence within the meaning of section 6 of the act of July 4, 1864, so as to debar a claim under the limitation prescribed in said section, if such certificate is not filed within the period of limitation. Peter M. Hostetter (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 1 P. D. (o. s.), 66.

10. Certificates of examination not evidence-Continued.

(a) Should be disapproved on sufficient reasons only.

Certificates of examining surgeons should not be disapproved or disregarded except for good and sufficient reasons.

B. Smith (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 2 P. D. (o. s.), 248.

(b) Can not be controverted by citizen or family physicians.

Sheridan

The reports of examining surgeons, under the instructions of the Pension Office, wherein they declare no disability to exist, can not be controverted by the testimony of a citizen physician. James M. McCurdy (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 418.

The testimony of two unofficial physicians is not sufficient to controvert the report of a board of examining surgeons as to the existence of a disease which from its nature is not incident to the service and to which said board states claimant's present disability is due. John P. Burdick (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (0. s.), 433.

The findings of a board of examining surgeons can not be controverted by lay testimony or the evidence of a family physician. To secure justice and uniformity of practice, the Department must, in questions of purely medical character, rely on its medical advisers. Edward H. Crawford (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 48.

Where claimant's right to increase of pension is purely a medical question, it is properly determined by medical exami nations, and the report of such examinations, made by boards of examining surgeons, can not be overturned by the affidavit of claimant's family physician filed in the case. Austin Brothers (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 313.

Certificates of examining surgeons can not be set aside nor controverted by the testimony of either family physicians or neighbors. Citing William L. D. O'Grady, 1 P. D., 222. John Blair (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 2 P. D., 183.

Examining surgeons are officers of the Government, and it is presumed that their duty has been properly performed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and the single affidavit of a civil surgeon is not sufficient to impeach the certificate of a board of official surgeons. Theodore M. Koyt (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., 331.

(c) By board overcomes that by single surgeon.

The report of a board of examining surgeons can not be set aside by the certificate of a single surgeon. The principle that an examination by a board of surgeons should take precedence over the examination of a single surgeon is recognized in law. William J. Wyatt (Sec. Schurz), 4 P. D. (o. s.), 242.

10. Certificates of examination not evidence—Continued. (c) By Board overcomes that by single surgeon-Continued.

The evidence of a single medical witness can not be accepted as sufficient to establish the alleged disability over the adverse report of the examining surgeons, and also of the special board of examiners. George W. Thomas (Sec. Teller), 10 P. D. (o. s.), 254.

The report of a board of examing surgeons is recognized under the law as entitled to precedence over the report of a single surgeon. The certificate of an examining surgeon can not be set aside by the testimony of either family physicians or neighbors. Joseph L. Tanner (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 63.

The long-established rulings of the Department have recognized the principle that an examination by a board of surgeous should take precedence over an examination by a single surgeon, and that examining surgeons' certificates can neither be set aside nor controverted by the testimony of family physicians or of neighbors. Francis N. Barnard (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 2 P. D., 244.

Where there is conflict between the report of a board of examining surgeons and the testimony of a claimant's physi cian, the Department will, as a rule, be guided by the former, it being presumed that the examining surgeons are not only competent, but entirely unbiased, disinterested, and free from the peculiar influences which frequently warp (perhaps unconsciously) the testimony of the family or attending physician. Philip T. Greely (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 3 P. D., 320.

(d) of special examination-section 4775, Revised Statutes.

The claimant being examined on October 29, 1880, under his original claim, and rated at one-fourth, was allowed pension at $2 a month from discharge; but on filing an affidavit alleging injustice in such rating and asking a reexamination under section 4775, Revised Statutes, he was examined accordingly August 17, 1881, and rated one half, to which rate he was increased from that date: Held, Said affidavit was not a claim for increase and the case was not governed by section 46981, Revised Statutes; that the report of the examining board under section 4775, Revised Statutes, superseded that of the original examining surgeon, and one-half rating should be allowed from October 29, 1880. Charles H. Barnard (Sec. Kirkwood), 9 P. D. (0. s.), 52.

Under section 4775, Revised Statutes, the decision of a special board of examining surgeons is final, and concludes the claimant's case; but the decision of such a board prior to March 3, 1873, is governed by section 8 of the act of July 4, 1864, and