Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GAYDOS. What was the nature of the writings and who were they from, and were they addressed to you, and did you receive them at home?

Mr. EVANS. They were received at home, one letter.

Mr. GAYDOS. One in the last how many months?

Mr. EVANS. Five-and-a-half or so.

Mr. GAYDOS. Could you explain the contents of that letter, or do you have it there?

Mr. EVANS. I could leave a copy with the committee if you like. Mr. GAYDOS. Do you have a copy?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GAYDOS. Let me identify that copy as Exhibit Item No. 4 for the use of the committee-Mark No. 4 on there, please-and it is a letter addressed to the witness, Mr. Evans, from the Labor Department relating to his claim. That is the only letter received in the last roughly five to six months?

Mr. EVANS. From the Department of Labor.

Mr. GAYDOS. From the Department of Labor, a letter dated January 18, 1977.

Have you received any other communications from anybody? Mr. EVANS. Yes; from Congressman Harris who has written me or given me duplicate letters on two occasions in which they attempted to intercede with the Department of Labor. I have copies of their letters. They have them too.

Mr. GAYDOS. How did you respond to this letter of January 18, 1977? I am referring specifically to the third paragraph which says: "Based on the evidence presently on file; your condition has not been clearly related to the injuries sustained in the performance of duty June 26, 1974. It is the employee's responsibility to provide this Office with proof of the relationship of disability and factors of his/her employment."

Did you respond in any way, you yourself, or through your attorney?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, I did, not through my attorney, whom I did not employ then, but I first went to the Personnel Office and obtained, it has been a bit informal, but accurate accounting of my sick leave used from the date of injury to December, 1976 which I was hopeful-I had no way of knowing at the time-would reflect the time I had lost from the job which, as you will notice in that letter, Exhibit 4, the writer says I haven't lost any time from the job. I next went back to my orthopedic surgeon and got him to reiterate his findings, reworded them, and then submitted that on 25 January, but this was not a cost to me. I must say fairly that I suppose Dr. Collins billed the Department of Labor for that appointment too. I think I have my whole medical history here with me. I doubt that you are interested in it, but I do have that and I submitted it. I have also gone to my family doctor, who has known me for some 10 years, as a result of that letter, and asked him to go back through my files to see if he could find anything that would be responsive to that letter, and he too filed a medical report or chronology with the Department of Labor. I paid for that one.

Since we are on the subject of pay I should also say in fairness that my cost of medicine is being paid, haphazardly, by the Department of Labor.

Mr. GAYDOS. Have you paid any bills for medicine?

Mr. EVANS. Oh, yes, and then I sent in the receipts.
Mr. GAYDOS. You get paid for them.

Mr. EVANS. I got paid once. I haven't gotten paid the second time. Mr. ZEFERETTI. There seems to be a little inconsistency in relation to the payment of all the doctor bills, medicine, and the like. I don't understand how they are paying all the doctor bills-

Mr. EVANS. No, sir.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. No surgery. There is an inconsistency and I don't understand how they can pay one and not pay the other.

Mr. GAYDOS. As I understand, as of this date there has been no denial of his claim.

Mr. EVANS. No.

Mr. GAYDOS. The reoccurrence. The injury occurred in 1974 and he went to work under adverse conditions, and I had two laminectomies, I know what you are speaking of. So he has been working for two years with his disability. Now it has progressed to the extent he cannot continue to work. He has filed a reoccurrence form saying "I was injured two years ago and my disability has now reoccurred."

Mr. EVANS. Yes.

Mr. GAYDOs. Am I accurate so far?

Mr. EVANS. You are, and I didn't mention it but I filed an earlier reoccurrence back in 1975, but I didn't seek any money or time for that. I just filed it for the record.

Mr. GAYDOS. So as of this time, if I understand it correctly, there has been no disposition of his claim. He has now in his possession Exhibit No. 4, a letter from the Department stating to him what he procedurally should do, and that is to accumulate more medical reports, bring it up to date, because they are going to make a disposition, but as I understand it, if I may, if you would yield to me, as you have the time, as I understand it, as of right now we are talking about-forget all about the first reoccurrence on the application. Talk about this one that is now being effectively progressed. As I understand it, your problem now-forget about the December 3 or January 10 discrepancy also, but let's just take January generally. From January up until now you have been going through a process of having submitted medical reports and now you are requested by your attorney, and also through this letter probably to submit more specific data and you are waiting for disposition of your case which hasn't occurred yet. Is that an accurate summation?

Mr. EVANS. That is correct. That is accurate.

Mr. MILLER. Have you had doctor bills since your reoccurence was claimed?

Mr. EVANS. None that were paid by me but I have visited the doctor.

Mr. MILLER. They have been paid by the Department of Labor? Mr. EVANS. Yes. Renewal of medicine.

Mr. MILLER. I don't know whether that is a normal occurrence or not, Mr. Chairman. If in fact they are not making a determination, whether or not the claim is authentic.

Mr. GAYDOS. It is a matter of inter-departmental discrepancy and designation because if they don't pay it, Blue Cross and Blue Shield is going to pick it up.

Mr. EVANS. Yes, but I have never gone to them.

Mr. GAYDOS. My assumption is that when there is a claim for a compensable injury all doctor bills are accepted by the department. Mr. MILLER. If they are paying that, then they are admitting there is a claim that is valid. Regardless of what other information they are asking him to produce, they are saying at that point that, "Yes, this reoccurrence is directly connected to the original injury and we are going to pay all doctor bills from this point on.'

To me that is an admission that the claim is just.

Mr. SARASIN. I will agree it sounds rather strange to do it that way, but I wonder if that is not what the law tells us to do, to accept these on the assumption they are valid subject to later being disqualified?

Mr. MILLER. What happens if they are not?

Mr. SARASIN. Then you go to Blue Cross. You have raised a question to which we should determine the answer.

Mr. GAYDOS. If I remember correctly, when we amended the act under the chairmanship of Mr. Daniels, that was a point of controversy in the committee and on the floor at the time. Liberalization did occur. People were complaining about having to pay for medical bills. We will have counsel check it. The Department of the Navy, the immediate employer, is paying those bills now, is that correct? Mr. EVANS. No way of knowing.

Mr. GAYDOS. You do submit it to them?

Mr. EVANS. I do not. My medical payments?

Mr. GAYDOS. Where do you submit your bills?

Mr. EVANS. I submit nothing. The doctor does it.

Mr. GAYDOS. Do you know to whom he submits it?
Mr. MILLER. He fills out a proper form?

Mr. EVANS. That is right, a yellow sheet.

Mr. GAYDOS. The department is paying for the medical treatment during this period where no disposition has been made of his claim and I think that is proper under the act.

Mr. GAYDOS. Page six, section 8103. The language says it is proper for the Secretry to pay bills where the claim is one which is "probably compensable." I assume under that section that bills are being paid under the probability aspect of it. I don't know yet and we will find out what happens if the claim is disallowed. Mr. SARASIN. You do submit bills for medicine?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, I do. I pay for that.

Mr. SARASIN. Then you submit the receipts?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, and I have receipted payments in one case. Mr. SARASIN. To whom do you submit the receipts?

Mr. EVANS. To this office.

Mr. SARASIN. At Labor?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, 25 McLaughlin Building.

Mr. SARASIN. You submit nothing to your employment unit? Mr. EVANS. No.

Mr. GAYDOS. It is not like the testimony of the other witness where they submit their bills to the immediate employer, in this case being IRS, or the Post Office.

We understand it. You have been receiving reimbursement from the Department of Labor. Let me ask you a couple of general questions if I am not taking someone's time.

You have worked for the federal government for 20 years. What have you discerned as far as this particular act is concerned and particularly since the amendments? Have you heard complaints from your fellow employees that it is improperly administered; it is not working right? What generally is your concept outside of your own personal experience?

Mr. EVANS. I have heard no such complaints or comments from people at my office. The only comments I have heard are from fellow claimants waiting in this room in the McLaughlin Building to be interviewed or to meet someone. You know how it is, barracks room talk.

Mr. GAYDOS. Is it your feeling your fellow employees consider the present act fair and adequate? Do they consider it a fair act which does provide adequate compensation?

Mr. EVANS. As I have said, Congressman, I haven't talked with any of my fellow employees other than to inform them what I am doing. None of them have any experience with this at the Navy Recruiting Command.

Mr. GAYDOS. Do you consider from January-give or take a few weeks in January-1977 to date, on an application of reoccurrence, do you consider that too long a period of time, a normal period of time? Are you concerned your claim is not being adequately processed?

Mr. EVANS. Quite. I have been in desperate financial straits. In that I can see some problems. It doesn't make me feel any better. If the Department of Labor were able to do nothing else other than to communicate with claimants and give them some sense of something being done or that something would be done, it would be very, very good. So far as I can tell, however, there is no such program there to communicate with claimants. It is almost an adversary arrangement. One goes down there and meets with a kind of-I don't want to say hostility—

Mr. GAYDOS. What is your service and time? Your age and service with the government?

Your present status is now unemployed as the result of a recurring injury, is that correct?

Mr. EVANS. That is correct, and I forgot one important thing, sir. On 26 January, 1977, upon the advice of people at the Department of Labor, I filed for what I call regular Civil Service disability retirement because I was told by them that it would likely come through before anything came from the Department of Labor and, as you know, if both of them were in my favor, I could choose between the two. I did file and on 14 April I was advised that I had been retired, a medical retirement from the federal government. They approved it. I had wonderful cooperation from the Civil Service Commission. They put me in special pay since I had been so long without money and they gave me a check for $1760. Mr. GAYDOS. Representing back payments?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, a portion of it. Perhaps all of it, I don't know. I don't know yet what my regular monthly annuity will be. I think in

the area of $600. I was earning $24,500 a year as a GS-12. This figure represents 40 percent of my earning capacity, but it is a whole lot better than nothing.

Mr. SARASIN. Mr. Evans, what happens if the comp claim is allowed? How will that affect your Civil Service disability?

Mr. EVANS. As I understand I will be allowed at the time to choose between the two. Naturally one would choose the one which is higher.

Naturally any money I received from Civil Service retirement would be deducted from any monies that the Department of Labor would send me.

Mr. SARASIN. That procedure of taking both routes is not unusual, I assume?

Mr. EVANS. I think it is usual. I was somewhat startled that the people in the Labor Department would suggest I do this.

You see, I hoped to be able to go back to work and I didn't want to file for Civil Service disability retirement, but, as it turned out, I won't be able to go back and I am glad now I filed.

Mr. SARASIN. Let me be sure I understand a couple of things. Number one, you have never been denied under the comp claim. Mr. EVANS. Not that I know of. It is a valid and accepted claim by them.

Mr. SARASIN. You have been going through this process all this time and they have never adjudicated the case at all.

Mr. EVANS. I have been going through this process since I filed the recurrence and the necessary forms for compensation which I think are CA-8, CA-7 and 8, which seeks compensation. I never sought it before in the terms of salary.

I did try to get my medicine paid for and was successful. They even paid me for mileage once, but I haven't bothered with that latter because it is a lot of trouble and you get tired of asking for help.

Mr. SARASIN. Unfortunately, the agency is created to provide help and you shouldn't be in the position of being unable to ask for it. I can appreciate your frustration.

Mr. EVANS. Well, driving to the doctor, you can do that anyhow. Mr. SARASIN. I was on the House floor when you began your testimony and came in after you had started. I came in at the moment you were presenting the forms and exhibits. I don't know where they came from. I wonder if you would tell me.

Mr. EVANS. Yes. One, the question and answer, which is probably Exhibit 3, was provided by the Navy. Exhibit 2 is an excerpt from the Federal Personnel Manual, Chapter 8, I believe. The first is from the Department of Labor itself, which I think describes the forms one needs to file.

Mr. SARASIN. This was not given to you immediately. This is something you had to run around and find?

Mr. EVANS. I had to run around and get them.

Mr. SARASIN. The individual to whom you reported the injury did not have a kit available for you?

Mr. EVANS. No. I don't want to badmouth my supervisor. He was very anxious and willing to help me, but didn't know how. Mr. SARASIN. Nothing was provided to him?