Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/450/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:21:58+00:00

Document:
1. In this suit against the United States to recover total permanent disability benefits under policies of War Risk Insurance, held that the District Court properly denied the Government's motion for a directed verdict, and that the evidence sustained the verdict for the plaintiff. P. 312 U. S. 451.
2. Rule 50(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure goes farther than the old practice in that district judges, under certain circumstances, are now expressly declared to have the right (but not the mandatory duty) to enter a judgment contrary to the jury's verdict without granting a new trial; but it has not taken away from juries and given to judges any part of the exclusive power of juries to weigh evidence and determine contested issues of fact. P. 312 U. S. 452.
3. The jury properly could have found from the evidence in this case that, as a result of injuries suffered in the World War, and while his policies of War Risk Insurance were in force, the plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policies, and has since remained so, in that he has not since been able, and will not again be able, to work with any reasonable regularity at any substantially gainful employment. P. 312 U. S. 453.
To justify a finding of total and permanent disability, it is not necessary that the insured be bedridden and helpless, or that he should not have undertaken any work of any kind. P. 312 U. S. 455.
4. That thirteen years elapsed before suit was brought in this case does not bar recovery, but is a circumstance to be weighed by the jury with the other evidence. P. 312 U. S. 456.
Certiorari, 311 U.S. 633, to review the reversal of a judgment for the plaintiff in a suit upon policies of War Risk Insurance.
"Whenever a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Within 10 days after the reception of a verdict, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. . . ."
Since the government made no such motion within 10 days after the verdict, petitioner urged here that the Circuit Court of Appeals was without power to dismiss the cause, but should have remanded it for a new trial. But, while this important point, upon which the Circuit Courts of Appeals are not in complete agreement, [Footnote 3] is one of the two questions upon which the petition for certiorari rested, there is no occasion for us to reach it here. For we find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, and we hold that the District Court properly denied the government's motion for a directed verdict in its favor.
do any work at all, and the same evidence of physical impairment which appears in this record had been offered, a jury could have properly found him totally and permanently disabled. And the jury could have found that his efforts to work -- all of which sooner or later resulted in failure -- were made not because of his ability to work, but because of his unwillingness to live a life of idleness, even though totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of his policies. [Footnote 9] Nor does the fact that he waited thirteen years before bringing suit stand as an insuperable barrier to his recovery. His case was not barred by any statute of limitations. Whatever weight the jury should have given to the circumstance of petitioner's delay in filing his claim, that weight was still for their consideration in connection with all the other evidence in the case.
There was evidence from which a jury could reach the conclusion that petitioner was totally and permanently disabled. That was enough. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the District Court is affirmed.
Though petitioner alleged that his policies were in effect until December 1, 1919, in reality it was necessary for him to show that he became totally and permanently disabled prior to September 1, 1919. This variance in dates is not material, however.
Compare Conway v. O'Brien, 111 F.2d 611, 613, reversed, post, p. 312 U. S. 492, with Pruitt v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 112 F.2d 140, 143. And see United States v. Halliday, 116 F.2d 812.
Compare Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., 228 U. S. 364, with Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654.
"If a verdict was returned, the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed."
See Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90, 281 U. S. 94; Richmond & Danville R. v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43, 149 U. S. 45; Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 145 U. S. 606; Sioux City & P. Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 84 U. S. 663.
"A total disability is any physical or nervous injury which makes it impossible for a person to follow continuously a substantially gainful occupation at any kind of work for which he was competent or qualified, physically and mentally, or for which he could qualify himself by a reasonable amount of study and training. The word 'total,' as applied to 'disability,' does not necessarily mean incapacitated to do any work at all. The word 'continuously' means with reasonable regularity. It does not preclude periods of disability which are ordinarily incident to activities of persons in generally sound health, for nearly all persons are at time temporarily incapacitated by injuries or poor health from carrying on their occupations. If Berry was able to follow a gainful occupation only spasmodically, with frequent interruptions, due to his injuries and his shock, he was totally disabled. A disability is permanent when it is of such a nature that it is reasonably certain it will continue throughout a person's lifetime."
Lumbra v. United States, 290 U. S. 551, 290 U. S. 559-560.
See United States v. Rice, 72 F.2d 676, 677; Nicolay v. United States, 51 F.2d 170, 173; United States v.Lawson, 50 F.2d 646, 651; United States v. Godfrey, 47 F.2d 126, 127; United States v. Phillips, 44 F.2d 689, 691.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.