APPENDIX F

A Machine and Tool Operator made the following accident report on Form CA-1, on 29 June 1977:

"Co-worker and I were moving a M113 tank out of the building

and the top door sprung forward catching my head, knocking my face into edge of opening."

Diagnosis: He received first-aid care at the Depot for a contusion on left side of face and a broken right incisor tooth. He was referred to a local dentist whom he selected for the repair of the tooth.

Results: This employee was out of work for 34 calendar days and 24 work days with a toothache. No doubt, had not this employee been eligible for COP his recovery would have been much sooner.

APPENDIX G

On 13 July 1977, the following history was given by a Saw Operator

in the woodworking shop:

"I was feeding rip saw and lumber kicked back and a stray
splinter cut and stuck in left hand."

Diagnosis: Traumatic laceration between 3rd and 4th finger. F.B. splinter between left 3rd and 4th finger, left hand.

Results: This employee was out of work for 34 calendar days and 24 work days. This employee could have returned to light duty the same day, however, employee stated he was in too much pain. He requested to go home on COP. The information has been forwarded to OWCP for a determination.

Had the employing agency had the authority to stop pay or adjudicate the claim this situation would not have occurred.

APPENDIX H

On 16 December 1975 a Buffer and Grinder employee filed Form CA-1

stating:

"I was pulling metal shaving out of a lathe and a long piece

of shaving cut first finger right hand."

Diagnosis: Deep laceration first finger right hand.

Employee was treated at the AAD Dispensary and was referred to the

Emergency Room for treatment.

in his first right finger.

Employee had three stitches placed

Results: Employee was out of work 41 calendar days and 29 work

days all with the approval of the OWCP. Prior to 1974, case

histories reveal that an employee with an injury of this nature would

not have lost time from his employment.

Mr. INGRAM. We are ready to try to entertain any questions you might have for us.

Mr. GAYDOS. You have heard some of the questioning over there. Would you have any specific recommendations how we can make the act more effective?

What do you think is a main deficiency in the act as amended? Are the 1974 amendments detrimental?

Mr. INGRAM. They were both good and bad.

Mr. GAYDOS. I want to hear why.

Mr. INGRAM. If I might elaborate. It was good from the standpoint of employees who were injured in the performance of duty, to allow these employees to continue their regular pay for 45 days.

Now, a lot of our people come back during this period of time, the 45-day period. The intent of the act, I am sure, was to allow people to continue their livelihood through this trying period. This was partly accomplished by the 1974 amendments.

But what it did not do was relieve the situation one iota as far as after the 45 days. There still exists an extended period of time in which our employees have to be without pay.

Mr. GAYDOS. Particularly in light of the fact that we have continual complaints of the inability of the Federal Government to process claims in a reasonable time?

Mr. INGRAM. That's correct.

Mr. GAYDOS. So you say then the 45 days could be 85, and you still wouldn't solve the problem?

Mr. INGRAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. GAYDOS. Forty-five days doesn't do what everybody says it was supposed to do?

Mr. ÎNGRAM. Other than the fact our employees' pay is continued through the 45-day period.

Mr. GAYDOS. What about the fakers in there-I am not saying there are any. Some people testified there are people that fudge their disability and that they aren't completely honest. Now, have you found out that there have been a substantial number, or any of the employees taking that time off under the 45-day clause?

Mr. INGRAM. I know there are. My personal opinion would be there are many.

Mr. GAYDOS. You are concluding it is being misused in a substantial number of cases. Is that a proper conclusion?

Mr. INGRAM. In my opinion, yes, sir.

Mr. GAYDOS. All right.

Mr. INGRAM. And I can substantiate some cases that I have tried unsuccessfully to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Department of Labor, and the injured employee.

Mr. GAYDOS. If that is true, what do you recommend to this committee that we do to correct the misuse and abuse of that 45day clause as it now exists?

Mr. INGRAM. I think the biggest problem is that the agency has no responsibility in the adjudication process of claims, and my question would be, if an installation is allowed to administer and control sick and annual leave, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to adjudicate claims, since the moneys are coming out of their funds?

The Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs tells us how to spend our money, yet we have no controls over their decision. To give you an illustration:

You can put a man on continuation of pay, who has alleged an injury, and the only alternative an agency has is to controvert the employee's pay whether or not the claim has merit.

The agency has no appeal rights over the Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs' decisions.

We can go to the Bureau, I've even gone to the head of the Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs in Jacksonville, Fla. I flew to Atlanta and met with him and gave him a list of claims we had controverted. And believe this, his folders on these claims were almost void, yet we had certification the information was submitted on numerous occasions. His only response was, "We will look into them further."

When he did respond, several weeks had passed, and we were not satisfied with his reply. He needed more time, yet our money was being paid to employees whose claims had no merit.

Having formerly served with the Department of Labor, I called the solicitor in Birmingham who arranged a meeting with the head of the Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs and the deputy commissioner in the Jacksonville office. We later met in Atlanta the second time on these problems, without results.

We again went to Jacksonville, in September of last year, and I was not happy with the results of our meeting. We wanted claims investigated that were controverted.

In this matter they sent in the Wage and Hour people to investigate. We were advised they didn't have investigators of their own, other than Wage and Hour employees, who had other responsibilities. But one individual we wanted investigated that was on the list, which we gave the Office of Workmen's Compensation Programs to investigate, was an employee who came to my office, alleged an injury, and was carried on continuation of pay.

We found this man had faked an injury-and it was substantiated in the investigation by the Wage and Hour investigator, who told us this employee had another job outside while receiving benefits. My compensation officer and the employee's supervisor investigated these allegations, which were confirmed, and the employee, by his own admission stated he was working driving a dump truck, even though he alleged a back condition. After he learned we were investigating his case, he stated, "I want to confess, my injury was not a result of my employment, and I would like to pay the money back."

If I had been intelligent, I would have allowed him to repay the money he received while on continuation of pay, but I thought it was unfair to the taxpayers of this country not to pursue this matter further and prosecute this employee for fraud. So, I asked the employee what he had done and why.

His response was, "I have gotten away with it before and I thought I could get away with it again."

He further stated during the time he was receiving continuation of pay he lived with another man's wife while he was out of State. The investigator asked if I would make a statement to that effect, and I stated, "I certainly will." My compensation officer also signed, under oath, a statement to this effect.

To this date, there has been no response from the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs on the disposition of this case. Mr. GAYDOS. How long has that been?

Mr. INGRAM. I believe it was June 10, 1976, right after I testified the first time.

Mr. GAYDOS. Let me ask you: Is that one incident, or is that indicative of many instances?

Mr. INGRAM. Many instances. Some were brought back to work that were out under similar circumstances. These we personally investigated. This we continued to do until the Department of the Army informed us we could not investigate cases any longer. Mr. GAYDOS. You don't investigate any further?

Mr. INGRAM. We don't now, nor does the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs investigate.

Mr. GAYDOS. They don't to your knowledge?

Mr. INGRAM. Well, the only investigators they have are Wage and Hour people, who are limited because they have other assignments. Mr. GAYDOS. How do you come to the conclusion whether to contest a case if you can't investigate?

Mr. INGRAM. It is very difficult.

Mr. GAYDOS. How do you do it?

Mr. INGRAM. By medical reports and the employee's statement. Mr. GAYDOS. Is there any justification for the continuation of pay in those cases where a man has five children and he's suffered an