Justices Rebuff Vets' Quest for Free Lifetime
Health Care
By DAVID STOUT
ASHINGTON, June 2 The Supreme
Court declined today to hear a case that sought free lifetime medical care that
was promised but not delivered to some veterans of World War II and the
Korean War.
Without comment, the justices refused to review a November ruling by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court held that
promises of lifetime health care made decades ago by recruiters to entice men to
serve in the military for at least 20 years were not valid, since the recruiters
had lacked the authority to make them.
"While we are sympathetic to the plaintiffs' position and acknowledge the
likelihood that plaintiffs believed these promises and relied on them, the
government is not legally bound to abide by them," the circuit court ruled, 9 to
4, in an opinion written by Judge Paul R. Michel.
Rightly or wrongly, grand promises by recruiters have been part of military
lore for generations, like foul-mouthed top sergeants and breakfasts of creamed
chipped beef on toast. But the two plaintiffs in this case, William O. Schism
and Robert L. Reinlie, both veterans of more than 20 years' military service,
seemed to have been victimized more by a huge and shifting bureaucracy than by
fast-talking salesmen.
Both men were represented by George E. Day, a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach,
Fla., who has been trying to get his clients' case certified as a class action,
or one affecting many others in a similar situation. Mr. Day has estimated that
up to three million people (half of them elderly veterans, with the remainder
their spouses) may be affected, raising the government's potential liability to
billions of dollars.
"I'm terribly disappointed," Mr. Day said today in a telephone interview from
Salt Lake City. He said the Supreme Court had taken "the easy way out," and that
he would push his cause in Congress. Mr. Day is a retired Air Force colonel who
was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for several years.
The circuit court said it was clear that recruiters had long made promises of
free medical care and had been encouraged to do so by their superiors.
"Unfortunately for plaintiffs, however, Congress has never authorized these
promises," the circuit court said last fall.
Until 1956, when Congress established a uniform system of health care for
military people and their dependents, medical care for service retirees was
fragmentary, the court noted. Under a law passed in 1966, retired members of the
armed forces and their dependents had to rely on benefits provided through
Medicare, which charges monthly premiums and generally does not cover
prescription drugs outside hospitals.
In 1996, Mr. Schism and Mr. Reinlie, both of Fort Walton Beach, filed suit in
Federal District Court in Florida, accusing the government of breaking its
contract with them. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the government to
reimburse them for the medical expenses they had incurred since they retired.
The district court rejected the men's claims, but a panel of the circuit
court ruled in early 2001 that they should be upheld. But the ruling against the
plaintiffs by the full Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme
Court's refusal today to review the case, may signal that Congress will be the
next arena.
Indeed, in its ruling last autumn the circuit court said it could do "no more
than hope Congress will make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith
to plaintiffs."
Mr. Schism served as an enlisted man in the Navy from 1943 to 1946, then
intermittently in the Navy and Army between 1947 and 1951. In 1951, he became an
Air Force officer, alternating from active to inactive duty for several years.
He was on active duty from 1956 to 1979, when he retired as a lieutenant
colonel. He died several months ago..
Mr. Reinlie was an enlisted man in the Army from 1942 to 1945. He entered the
Air Force in 1951, became an officer in 1953 and served continuously until
retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 1967.
Chief Judge Haldane Robert Mayer was even more sympathetic to the plaintiffs
and other veterans. In an angry dissent joined by three colleagues, he rejected
as "pure sophistry" the notion that Congress did not know what recruiters were
promising.
"If Congress can appropriate billions for this aspect of national defense and
not know how it is accounted for, then God Save the Republic," Judge Mayer
wrote.
DISCLAIMER: All
information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for
general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the
knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended
as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate
is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in
consultation with your health care provider.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"