Court Opinion

ID: 9443158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:12:47.865557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:23.739997
License: Public Domain

GOODMAN, District Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result, because I believe that the “Doctors Draft Law” was administered fairly by the Military and in accordance with Congressional ■ intent, as to appellant. He was commissioned. The commission was revoked because of his refusal to comply with regulations. This fully justified the denial of the writ by the Court below’
I do not agree with the court’s view that the statute permits the military to make any duty assignment to a drafted doctor within a “minimal permissible area.” It seems to me that this holding is not necessary for decision' in this case. Since it *213has been made the basis of decision, I cannot agree to it.
In my opinion, Congress did not leave to the military the power to fix the duties of a drafted doctor within some general undefined limits. For if that be so, then a drafted doctor, for example, could be put to work by the military, cleaning sponges or instruments in an operating room, upon the theory that such work has a reasonable relationship, within a “permissible area,” to medical services.
In my opinion, Congress intended that a drafted doctor should be a doctor in the military service, unless his own refusal prevents. Otherwise he should be discharged and returned to civilian medical status.
On Petition for Rehearing.
The petition for rehearing is denied.