The National tribune., 1897-12-16
PENSION DECISIONS.
Cases Of Interest Disposed Of
by Mr.. Davis.

4 decision interesting to attorneys is
made in a fee case whose docket number
! Is 5l35. An attorney appealed in the matter
of fee in a claim under the general law
! Another attorney, who first handled the
claim, on April 2, 1886, filed the original
declaration, in which pension was claimed
I on account of disability due TO liver
| disease; he also filed fee agreements for
! $25. On Sept. 10, 1887. certificate issued
! to allow pension on account Of asthma,
and fee of S25 was certified TO him.
| That part OF the claim, based on disease
OF liver was rejected under ruling o.
! May II, 1891 appclIant-thc second law
| yer 10 take the case for the client-flcd
| clam Tor additional pension on account of
! disease OF liver dyspepsia, and nervous
! ness; he also fled fee agreements for S25.
! March IL, 1892. certificate issued 10 allow
| additional pensionion account OF disease Of
/ liver. On this issue appellant was denied
! q fee on the grosDd1hat he had rendered
/ no material service in securing the pension
allowed; hence this appeal
The decision says that 50 far as the APP
! pellant's title TO recognition IS concerned,
! 1t IS only necessary 20 call attention to the
! TACT that as the original attorney had been
| paid the fee stipulated in his contract the
| claimant was at liberty, al any time after
! payment, To enter into a new contract with
i any other attorney, who, upon filing evi-
/ dence OF his a'ithepity 10 appear in the
! case, would immediately become entitled
/ to recognition as against the first attorney
and this whether he were in default under
| the rules OF practice or not.
pension was not allowed on account OF
/ disease OF liver on the original issue, and
! thereon the first attorney was certified his
| full contract fee, ii is evident that under
| the foregoing rule the appellant was en-
| TITLED to immediate recognition upon filing
| his power OF attorney.
| However, in order TO entitle appellant to
| a lee 1T was necessary that ne should per
| form material service. At the time the
| appellant came into the case the claim for
! pension on account Of disease OF liver
stood rejected under ruling ~.
So the state of the claim on account of
disease Of liver at the time the appellant
flied his power OF attorney, would indicate
t!tat 1urther services were required to
secure It's allowance; such service would
consist, | apprehend, either in filing addi
| tiOnal evidence a motion to read Indicate
the claim upon the evidence already on
| lie. " In this connection the decision
continues, it might be well to state that
| the words without prejudice fused in the
ruling ~, case Of l.. III. Kannada referring
10 that part Of the claim rejected because
based on disabllitie, held as not shown TO
exist signify that the filing OF evidence
with u view 10 reopen the claim under rule
- was not necessary. Further action
would be taken without such evidence;
tnat U.s. such action as was taken in this
cidiiu. III must, therefore, Ee conc eded mat
the readIudicatiOn Of the claim as 10 dis
case OF liver was had upon the motion OF
TINS appellant; that is, secured by him.
The Bureau was at liberty TO treat the
-ueciafatlon as motion 10 readJudicate
the claim upon the evidence filed, ard
having so treated ii, all results arising
therefr0m must be accredited TO the ap
pelldnt. so, having taken the necessary
steps to secure the allowance of pension,
and further steps in the prosecution of the
claim were necessary, IT must be held that |
appellant has rendered material service
Thus, IN principle is announced: |
When any part OF a claim stands rejected |
under ruling 81 without prejudicej. the |
filing OF additional evidence is not "a pre-
requisite to obtain Il formal adjudication as |
to that part OF the claim thus rejected, |
such acton may be had (aS the case |
stands upon motion to read Indicate.
Where new declaration is filed re
alleging cause of disability at time
when a claim stands rejected under ruling
~, and is acted upon by the Bureau as a
motion to readludcate. the filing OF said
declaration Is deemed material service"
In the case of Gardner T. Van AIstine
Co. T., 7th n, YAH. NJ wherein the former
rejection was approved, 1t IL stated in the
decision that the itmere fact that the pen
sioner Is disabled To such an extent as to
require the constant aid and attendance of
another person Is not sufficient To enttle
him 10 a rating 81 S72 II must be shown
that the disabling, cause or causes are
either Of service origin or that they are the
result OF Il cause. on. account of which he is
penSiOned.' In this case the penSiOner is
in receipt Of SIS per month on account OF
amputatiOn near the hip Joint as to pre-
vent the wearing Of an artificial leg. He
applied for increase to $72 for total help
lessness. The claim was rejected ON the
ground that the present condition is due in
part 10 other than pensioned cause. The
decision says that N is not alleged, neither
is il attempted 10 prove, that rheumatism
and disease Of heart, which appear to be
shown, in part, to contribute to claimants
service or that they are the result of ampu
tatiOn | am, therefore, constrained to hold
that the claimants present condition is
due, in part To other than pensioned cause
and thereby affirm the action OF your Bu-
reau."