convenience of the Government. It was merely taking me back to where I came from and to the point from which I was removed due entirely to the war. 7. If my goods had gone to Washington in accordance with the travel order it would have cost the Government about three times what it did to have them stopped at an intermediate point and it would not have been for the convenience of the Government because after my retirement the Government could not possibly gain anything by having me in Washington. By removing my goods all the way to Washington the Government would have spent more money and then to get the goods back to southern Indiana would have cost me about twice what it did cost the Government to transport them to southern Indiana, in addition to which the goods in question would have suffered a lot of additional wear and tear by the double trip.

8. I have always been under the impression that even in Government transactions there is such a thing as justice and since I was removed to St. Louis for the convenience of the Government due entirely to the war and at considerable expense to myself and then was removed from St. Louis to Washington for the convenience of the Government. I cannot for the life of me see why I should be penalized for shortening the haul on account of my eminent retirement, to which under the law I was entitled and which retirement was known to the officials who issued my travel order

9. If my former subordinate, Gordon B. Gilmore, had not very meticulously set this claim up against me before disallowing my claim, it undoubtedly would have gone through without question. His action was in direct conflict with the advice I received from the Office of Budget and Finance of the Departmert of Agriculture and in direct conflict with the Philadelphia case before mentioned. 10. As I have already stated and have tried to emphasize in the foregoing numbered comments, everything about my move from Washington to St. Louis_and from St. Louis to Washington was due entirely to the war. By such move I am out of pocket a substantial sum of money, much more in actual dollars than any sum to which I have made specific reference and I am justly entitled to the relief sought by the above-entitled bill.

I dislike exceedingly to burden you with this long letter, but I believe it was necessary in order to fully state my case and I hope as burdensome as it may be, you will take time out and read it, because I believe it will give you an excellent picture of some of the transactions which have taken place and do take place every day due to arbitrary rulings by the Comptroller General.

Very truly yours,

JAS. R. FRAZER.

LORETTA B. POWELL

JUNE 14, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. LANE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 2807]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2807) for the relief of Loretta B. Powell, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $4,121.75 to Loretta B. Powell, of Oakland, Calif., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for damages sustained by her on account of her personal injury on August 24, 1944, when she tripped over a wooden brace supporting a partition in the office of the Pacific Overseas Air Technical Service Command. Oakland, Calif.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It appears that Mrs. Loretta B. Powell was employed by the Army at headquarters, Pacific Overseas Air Technical Service Command, Oakland, Calif., from about March 8, 1943, until about February 18, 1944, when she discontinued her employment. On August 24, 1944. she went to the personnel office of said Army headquarters for the purpose of making application for retirement funds which had been withheld from her pay during her employment. At that time the personnel office was separated from the rest of the offices at such headquarters by a partition 42 inches high. Entry into the personnel office was gained through a swinging gateway of the same height. The partitition was supported on each side of a gateway on the side from which entrance into the office was made by 2 by 4 braces which extended at right angles from the partition for a distance of 19 inches. Mrs. Powell upon leaving the personnel office passed through the gateway of the partition and stumbled over one of the braces and fell to the floor, sustaining a compression fracture of a vetebra of her back.

The Department of the Army in its report dated March 20, 1948, states:

It is the view of the Department of the Army that Mrs. Powell should be compensated in a reasonable amount for the personal injury sustained by her in this accident, the pain and suffering undergone, and the earnings lost by her as a result of her injury. The proposed award of $7,500 stated in H. R. 1862 appears to be somewhat excessive. Upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence in this case it is the view of the Department of the Army that an award of $4,121.75 ($4,000 for personal injury, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings; and $121.75 for additional medical and hospital expenses) would constitute a fair and reasonable settlement for all of the damages sustained by Mrs. Powell as a result of this accident for which she has not heretofore been compensated. The Department, therefore, would have no objection to the enactment of this bill if it should be amended to provide for an award to Mrs. Powell in an amount not exceeding $4,121.75.

A bill, H. R. 1862, Eightieth Congress, was introduced for the sum of $7,500 and the Secretary of the Army in the above statement says that this was excessive and recommended the sum of $4,121.75; this hill (H. R. 2807) was introduced for the suggested amount. And your committee concurs in the recommendation of the Department of the Army and recommends favorable consideration to the bill.

Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., March 20, 1948.

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MICHENER: The Department of the Army would have no objection to the enactment of H. R. 1862, Eightieth Congress, a bill for the relief of William H. Powell and Loretta B. Powell, if it should be amended as hereinafter recommended.

This bill provides as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to William H. Powell and Loretta B. Powell, both of Oakland, California, the sum of $7,500. The payment of such sum shall be in full settlement of all claims against the United States on account of personal injuries sustained by the said Loretta B. Powell, wife of the said William H. Powell, on August 24, 1944, when she tripped over a wooden brace supporting a partition in the office of the Pacific Overseas Air Service Command, Oakland, California".

The records of the Department of the Army show that Mrs. Loretta B. Powell was employed by the Army at headquarters, Pacific Overseas Air Technical Service Command, Oakland, Calif., from about March 8, 1943, until about February 18, 1944, when she discontinued her employment. On August 24, 1944, she went to the personnel office of said Army headquarters for the purpose of making application for retirement funds which had been withheld from her pay during her employment. At that time the personnel office was separated from the rest of the offices at such headquarters by a partition 42 inches high. Entry into the personnel office was gained through a swinging gateway of the same height. The partition was supported on each side of the gateway on the side from which entrance into the office was made by 2 by 4 braces which extended at right angles from the partition for a distance of 19 inches. Mrs. Powell upon leaving the personnel office passed through the gateway of the partition and stumbled over one of the braces and fell to the floor. sustaining a compression fracture of a vertebra of her back.

On August 13, 1945, Loretta B. Powell and her husband, William H. Powell, filed a claim with the War Department in the aggregate amount of $8,125.82 ($7,500 for the personal injury sustained by Mrs. Powell; and $625.82 for medical and hospital expenses actually incurred on account of her injury). After careful consideration the War Department determined that the injury of Mrs. Powell resulted from the negligence of military personnel or civilian employees of the War Department or of the Army in failing to maintain the premises adjacent to

a doorway in a Government office in a safe condition and was not caused in whole or in part by any fault or negligence on the part of Mrs. Powell. The Department, therefore, on November 16, 1945, approved the claim in the amount of $625.82 (medical and hospital expenses actually incurred) under the provisions of the act of July 3, 1943 (57 Stat. 372; 31 U. S. C. 223b), as amended, and that sum was paid to the claimants on February 13, 1946. There was no statute at the time said claim was acted on by the War Department, and there is none now, under which any amount may be paid administratively on account of the personal injury and pain and suffering sustained by Mrs. Powell.

It appears that since the above-mentioned claim was acted on Mrs. Powell has incurred additional expenses on account of her injury in the aggregate amount of $121.75 ($100 for nurses; $15 for a surgical corset; and $6.75 for hospital expenses). On December 22, 1947, Mrs. Powell was examined by Army medical officers at the Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, Calif., and Capt. R. J. Hopkins. Medical Corps, submitted the following report of the examination:

"This 54-year-old woman is seen in orthopedic consultation regarding residuals of a compression fracture of L-1 as a basis for claim against the United States Government.

"This patient gives a history of a compression fracture of L-1 sustained when she fell on the floor of an office where she had gone on business. This accident occurred on August 24, 1944. She was taken by ambulance to the Oakland area Army hospital where, according to the patient's history, X-rays were taken and she was started on physiotherapy for the pain in her back. Three or four days later additional X-rays were made which the patient states revealed a fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. Physiotherapy was discontinued after she had had one treatment, and she was placed in a hospital bed on fracture boards. On September 4, 1944, she was sent home and she states because she continued to have pain in her back slept on a board bed. She was then transferred to Peralta Hospital on September 5, 1944, after seeing a civilian doctor between the 3d and 5th of September 1944. Additional X-rays were made at Peralta Hospital which revealed a simple compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. She was placed in a hospital bed in hyperextension. No plaster immobilization was used. She remained for 2 weeks in the hospital and then was allowed to go home, where she was kept at absolute bed rest in a hospital-type bed for an additional 6 weeks. After hyperextension and absolute bed rest for 8 weeks she was fitted with a back brace and made ambulatory. She wore this brace until June 15, 1945, when it was discarded. At the present time the patient complains of considerable diffuscd pain in the low back and is unable to carry on her normal activities Since discarding her brace she has been wearing a surgical type corset.

"Physical examination reveals a female who stands with considerable roundness of the dorsal spine and approximately normal lumbar curvature. She is able to forward bend approximately 40°. Hyperextension, with patient standing, causes considerable discomfort and palpation of the sacrospinalis musculature with this procedure reveals considerable weakness of these muscles groups. There is a moderate amount of splinting of the lumbar spine on lateral bending to the left, but a normal curve of the lumbar spine on lateral bending to the right. Straight leg raising tests reveal that the patient is able to tolerate the legs flexed to approximately 70° bilaterally. With this test she experienced tenderness along the posterior thighs and a pulling sensation along the sacrospinalis musculature bilaterally. The sacroiliac shearing tests and rotation tests of the pelvis are essentially negative. Marked abduction of the leg causes pain along the abductor groups, bilaterally. Hyperextension of the legs, with patient lying on stomach, produces a pulling sensation in the back. Palpation of the lumbar and dorsal spines reveals a diffuse area of tenderness extending from T-11 to L-3 directly over the vertebral spines. There is no evidence of gibbus or other deformity of the lumbar spine. With the patient lying relaxed on her stomach there is very little spasm of the back musculature. Reflexes of the lower extremities are equal and physiological and sharp and dull tests for sensation over the lower extremities reveal no areas of anesthesia or paresthesia.

"X-ray examination reveals a slight compression of the upper surface of L-1 vertebral body. This compression amounts to about 15-20 percent of the normal height of the vertebra. There is no evidence of comminution of vertebral body. X-ray of the dorsal spine reveals a considerable dorsal kyphosis with wedging of the vertebrae of the entire spine and arthritic lipping along the anterior lips of all of the dorsal vertebrae."

On the foot of the above-quoted report of Captain Hopkins, the following statement was made by Lt. Col. R. B. Watson, Medical Corps: