Evening star., 1898-02-21
HER CLAIM REJECTED.
Adverse Decision I'm DR.. Mary Wall
ker's PensfOmCase.


Webster Davis, assistant secretary Of
the interior, has rendered an adverse de-
cisaon IN the famous DR.. Mary E. Walker
case which has been pending in the de-
partnent for many 1years Dr. Walker,
VINO Is pensioned as "a contract or acting
ass'stant surgeon. att IS 5Ga month, on 1c-
count OF diseases ofs eyes, filed February
Z, second motion for reconsideration of a
decision rendered March 3, 1897, wherein
the action OF the bureau was sustained in
the rejection of her claim for increase of
pension. This claim for II crease was based,
rot alone on the actual increase of dis
anlhty from impairedseyedght but also en-
other alleged results of disease of eyes.
nancy disease of lungs, heart and stom-
ach, and It was insisted that she was en-
titled to a rating of $50 per month. as pro-
Vioeo oy the act Of July IA, 1892, because
sne was not only totally disabled for the
performance OF all manual labor, but re-
quired the frequent and periodical aid and
attenoance or another person in conse-
quence Of the disabilities named Assist
ant secretary Davis says in his decision:
In the first place the pension granted
as peing due to appellants service in the
simple opthalmia or blepharitis, product ag
Ihotohobia and lachrymation, which some
times tmpairs the eyesight, but there has
peen no evidence at any time showing that
were
affected, unless from some congenital de-
1ect, causing asthemopia, or astigmatism,
Wnlch Could not be included in the pension
able disability, and which as shown could
De readily corrected with proper glasses.
Tie rating allowed for the admitted dis
ability was $3.50 per month, or one-half
total OF the rank Of assistant surgeon. The
INST decision set out In full the description
OF appellants disability from disease of
eyes, as given in the medical examinations
held under the claim for increase, also the
opinion rendered Ivy the medical referee
that no increase of disability from pen
stoned cause was shown. and the error Of
refraction caused by hyperopia was not
proper matter for considerations in the in
cIe ase claim.
1T is admitted that the evidence filed
shows that appellant has had several at
tacks of sickness in the past few years. two
or three from lung trouble one or more
from stomach trouble, and one from a
broken leg. and there is no doubt but she
suffered much pain Of body and distress tf
mind at these times, but to allow that
these were caused or in the remoteSt way
induced by the disease of eyes for which
she Is pensioned, cannot be thought of for
moment. Therefore, the former deci-
sions, which hold that no increase of PEN
stoned disability and no special special re-
suits thereof are shown, must be reafiirmed.
Then again. the appellant is laboring
under misrepresentation as to the scope
and provisions Of the act of July H. 1892
which grants the $50 rate Of pension. That
G! ant Is only on account O.! the injuries re-
ceived or disease contracted in service and
line of duty. and then only when such m
jrries or disease produces total incapaci.y
for performing manual labor and makes
necessary the frequent and periodical aid
and attendance of another person. Under
this law appellants els ability from disease
of lungs, heart and stomach cannot enter
into the consideration at all, because, as
already seen, they are not shown to have
any connection with the military service,
ard az the disease of eyes alone does 1ot
entitle to increase. there is no authority for
granting the rating of $50 per month"; ESQ.,