Court Opinion

ID: 9459047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:08:51.58916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:59.586059
License: Public Domain

TRASK, Circuit Judge (with whom WALLACE, Circuit Judge, joins)
specially concurring:
The majority opinion 'reverses the judgment of the trial court for the stated reason that the registrant claimed a disabling medical condition or physical defect and was not accorded a medical interview under 32 C.F.R. § 1628.2(b) by the local board as it was then required to do. The disabling condition claimed by the registrant, upon which the opinion relies for its judgment, was “hypoglycemia.”
Unless “hypoglycemia” was on the list of disabling conditions of the Surgeon General, 32 C.F.R. § 1628.1, the registrant’s claim of that condition does not require a medical interview and the decision of the majority is clearly in error. Hypoglycemia is not on the list and the majority concedes as much. It then rationalizes its decision by asserting that hypoglycemia is “the same as” hyperinsulinism, and the latter is on the list. I do not find such judicial practice of medicine a palatable exercise. We have enough difficulty mastering the intricacies of our own profession without assuming proficiencies in another which we do not possess. It seems perfectly apparent that the reason for providing that the Surgeon General should “from time to time prescribe or approve a list” of disqualifying medical conditions or physical defects was to render certain and explicit those medical exemptions without requiring or even permitting a local board to engage in the art of diagnosis. A court is in no better position. Had the Surgeon General believed that hypoglycemia was “the same as” hyperinsulinism he was certainly competent to say as much and add hypoglycemia to the list.
Nor do I believe a court is competent to include diseases or conditions which it believes might be encompassed within the general category of “other endocrine or metabolic disorders which obviously preclude satisfactory performance of duty or which require frequent and prolonged treatment.”
If an unspecified medical condition is to be included within a general category, that is a medical judgment to be made by a doctor at the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Station, not by lawyers or judges. This is pai'ticularly true when as an added factor a judgment must be made as to whether the unlisted disorders “preclude satisfactory performance of duty or require frequent and prolonged treatment.”
In this case there has never been a suggestion in the record that hypoglycemia is “the same as” hyperinsulinism, or that it falls within the general category of “other endocrine or metabolic disorders which obviously preclude satisfactory performance of duty or which require frequent and prolonged treat*885ment.” 1 Registrant’s claimed condition was based upon a statement from J. Paul Wayne, M.D., in a letter dated October 10, 1968, which said:
“Mr. Chris D’Arcy was found to have symptoms of hypoglycemia on 4/8/66. Confirmed by a glucose tolerance test.” (Emphasis supplied). Selective Service File at 34.
The letter bears a stamp on it dated June 18, 1969, (date of proposed induction) which states that the letter has been “reviewed and considered in registrant’s physical profile.”2
I, therefore, dissent from the rationale of the opinion and decision because it stands as a precedent for lawyers and judges to play doctor. This was never contemplated by the law or the regulations.
After this too lengthy statement of disagreement with the rationale, I agree with the result because hyperinsulinism was called to the attention of the board by letter dated August 5, 1968.3 This date is, of course, considerably after the date the Statement of Acceptability (D. D. Form 62) was issued on June 27, 1968. Judge Kilkenny would dismiss the claim of hyperinsulinism because of its late filing. It was not accompanied by any verification from a doctor or other documentation. Nevertheless, it claimed a disabling condition which, for aught we know, may have developed and been diagnosed on August 4, 1968. The regulations in question requiring a medical interview do not place a time limitation within which the claim must be made. Conceivably such a change of condition could occur up to the induction date. Therefore, substituting hyperinsulinism for hypoglycemia in the majority opinion I would concur in its result. I would not, however, dismiss the indictment, but would remand with directions to the district court to determine the truth of the claim of hyperinsulinism made on August 5, 1968, and thereafter to proceed in accordance with the views expressed in this concurring opinion.

. At the trial in the district court on May 18, 1971, counsel for registrant introduced a letter he had received from AFEES in response to counsel’s inquiry regarding D’Aroey’s claimed hypoglycemia disqualification. The response is dated April 15, 1971, and entitled “Re: Inquiry Concerning Mr. Jon Christopher D’Arcey,” and is signed by William H. Pee, Jr., Senior Medical Officer. After an introductory technical paragraph, Dr. Fee concluded:
“Reactive Hypoglycemia is rarely disqualifying for entry into military service, and there is no standard glucose value used to diagnose the problem. The diagnosis is made by close correlation between glucose values and the man’s symptoms as reflected in the individual’s history and as observed by a physician during the actual conduct of the test.” C.T. at 26; R.T. at 5.

. That tlie hypoglycemia claim was investigated at APEES is evidenced by the notations in his Report of Medical Examination which was dated October 30, 1968, the examination having begun on June 27, 1968. Hypoglycemia was noted by the registrant on the report of medical history filed by registrant. The medical notes contain a statement “Glucose tolerance test on low range normal N.C.D. [not considered disabling]” with the stamped name of “L. McCarthy, M.D.”

. This letter, which was called to my attention by the majority and verified in the record, was not mentioned in the majority opinion. It reads as follows:
“August 5, 1968 13982 Quito Oaks Way Saratoga Calif.
“Santa Clara County Drft Board, #62 111 St. John, San Jose, Calif.
Gentlemen:
I would like to appeal my 1A classification because I believe I am unsuitable for induction. I have Hyperinsulinism, a disease which is listed in AR-40-501, the Standards of Medical Fitness under Section 6, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, Sub-section 11-8, Paragraph 2.
I, would appreciate an appearance with the government appeal agent with the local board and a stay of induction until I have a chance to present my appeal.
Would you please consult with your medical advisor in this matter?
Sincerely,
Jon Christopher D’Areey /s/ Chris D’Arcey”