Opinion
No. 8168.
October 27, 1936.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; William H. Barrett, Judge.
Action by Clara Louise Lockett against the United States. From a judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict, plaintiff appeals in forma pauperis.
Affirmed.
W. Inman Curry, of Augusta, Ga., for appellant.
Keith L. Seegmiller, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D.C., Slaton Clemmons, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Atlanta, Ga., and Dunbar Harrison, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Clara Louise Lockett brought suit on her son's war risk insurance certificate and lost it by a directed verdict. Her son was shown to have enlisted in the Army in 1918 and to have been discharged in April, 1919, after which no premiums were paid. His knee was injured in the service, causing a permanent limp, and he looked bad and was subject to nervous spells from the time of his discharge, but held several jobs during 1920. In 1921 for the first time since his discharge he received medical treatment. Proof was offered and rejected that in 1923 he was rated for compensation as totally disabled for a period beginning May 25, 1921. He died in Kansas City in April, 1924. A letter from an unidentified surgeon in that city was offered and rejected, which stated that Lockett had had convulsive seizures on the street which did not look like true epilepsy. No testimony from physicians was introduced. So far as appears, Lockett before his death made no claim that he was entitled to disability payments from the time of his discharge, although as above indicated he applied for and obtained compensation. His mother filed her claim for the insurance installments accruing since his death only on June 27, 1931. In such circumstances there is a heavy burden on her to show clearly that when the policy lapsed for nonpayment of premiums in May, 1919, her son was in truth both totally and permanently disabled. Lumbra v. United States, 290 U.S. 551, 54 S.Ct. 272, 78 L.Ed. 492. Without stating the evidence in detail, we think she wholly failed to produce proof on which a jury could find more than partial disability at that time. A rating for compensation is not usually admissible to show total and permanent disability for insurance purposes, but, if the evidence offered had been received, it would not in the least prove Lockett to have been totally disabled in May, 1919. Apparently it was decided that, though his condition originated in the service, it did not incapacitate him earlier than May, 1921. The rejected letter was pure hearsay; in no way an official report. It also threw no light, if admitted, on Lockett's condition in 1919. The verdict was correctly directed against the claim.
Affirmed.