*1 Agustin VIOLA, Appellant, of America.
UNITED STATES District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided June
Hеnry Lerch, Washington, C., F. D. appellant. Wesley, Atty., Dept, C. of Jus- Robert tice, Gray, III, with L. Patrick whom Atty. Asst. Gen. at the time the brief filed, Titus, Jr., S. Harold H. U. Atty., Fleischer, Atty., and Walter H. brief, Dept, Justice, were appellee. BAZELON,
Before Judge, Chief Judge, Circuit and HARRISON WINTER* Fourth Circuit.
PER CURIAM: shep- is a farmer and . Negros near the herd on the island of archipe- end оf the southern lagian chain. Viola is fought Dagoy, Philippine national who War for the United World gave (71st Artillery) and who Field life in that conflict. Viola sued for benеfits entitled he claims he is military service. his father’s
* (a). pursuant Sitting designation 291§ to 28 U.S.C. *2 beginning demnity Compensation in programs Con- the various benefit Of gress and 1958. for veterans has established families, to this are relevant two May 18, 1961, in the Tranas On Indemnity Dependency (1) and case: illegiti- decision,3 that an this court held monthly essentially Compensation a gratu- tо receive is entitled mate child pension paid of or children to the widow either if program. insurance benefits itous life service- veteran whosе death a connected;1 by parent the was covered (2) Gratuitous ruling, is an Viola Under insurance Life is an Insurance beneficiary The of such benefits. V.A. рayment program provides $5,000 that fact, how- inform of this Viola qualified of veterans.2 to beneficiaries Agustín ever, remoteness of and because rеceiving De- Viola has been home,4 deci- did not learn of our his he Compensation
pendency
Indemnity
and
filed a
sion
late in 1964. Viola
until
However,
pаyments
his
since 1958.
application
formal
for insurance benefits
plications
Life Insurance benefits
appli-
By
on Dec.
such
1964.
ground
the
that
have
they
dеnied on
been
by
applicant’s
the
cations must be
timely filed.
In this suit
were not
birthday;5
filed his at the
22nd
age
Viola
challenges
denial.
Viola
that
appli-
years,
His
of 22
six months.
by
rejected
untimely
the
cation
as
plain-
The record shows that when the
this ac-
and
mother,
years old,
Maria
tiff
his
tion followed.
Viola,
preрared
letter
in which she
had a
apply
expressed
“to
her intention
think the
error
V.A.
compensation
the
death
account
asserting
Viola’s 1964 letter was
by
rendered
the late veteran
services
application
for insurance bene
first
The letter ex-
HILARIO DAGOY”.
Rather,
application
fits.
the initial
being
рlained
application
the
request
came Maria Viola’s
illegitimate
Dagoy’s
made on behalf of
think that
the
due her son. We
benefits
signed
son, Agustín Viola. Srta. Viola
general
terms,
letter,
can
couched
thumbprint
mailed
the letter with a
and
only
reasonably interpreted
a re-
as
(V.
it
A.)
Veterans’ Administration
Agustín
quеst
for all benefits
9,1956.
on June
suggest that an
entitled.6 To
Viola was
intend-
farm woman
illiterate
sending
responded by
The V.A.
Srta.
among
vari-
ed make fine distinctions
apрlication
Dependen-
Viola an
form for
laws strains
ous sections
veterans’
Indemnity
cy
Compensation. The
and
credulity beyond tolerable limits.
apрlication
agency did
not send an
continuing
Moreover,
there were
bene-
National
fits,
Agustín
apparently
and
tacts between
Viola
the V.A. consid-
fоllowing
illegitimate
ineligible
Srta.
ered
for Veterans’
children
first
letter. There was
time.
insurance benefits at that
Srta.
investigation,
completed
patrimoniаl
cul-
Viola
form she
investiga-
Dependency
in the
After
careful
minated
award
had received.
Indemnity Compensation
tion,
in 1958.
confirmed
and
Then,
V.A.
Dagoy;
Nоvember,
months
Viola
1961—six
Dependency
In-
the Tranas
awarded him
and
after we issued
—Vi-
spent
Subchapt.
account,
U.S.C., Chapt. 13,
By
has
See 1.
4.
his own
(1970 Ed.).
“in
field
of his life
most
Oriental,
Negros
Valencia,
mountains
802(d)
2. See §
Philippines.”
Appellant’s
at 5.
brief
(1970).
§
U.S.C.
agrees
(1952).
Dagoy
that Hilario
was covered
38 U.S.C.
by
reading
compelled
broadly
by
in-
United States v.
common sense but
of what con-
as Guardian of
clusive
definition
§ 784
a valid claim.
38 U.S.C.
stitutes
(h)
granted
pleadings.
bene-
ola was
school attendance
has also
argued
January, 1962,
compen-
court
fits.
Viola’s
that Viola’s law
period
modified
suit was initiated after the time
sation award was reviewed
hardly
Ap
it can
be said
such an
the V.A. Thus
action
run.
pellant’s
(1964)
was filed in
the formal
govern-
denied sometime in
insurance
came
1965. Since
benefits
during
periоd,
tolled
ment
out of the blue.
statute was
as bolt
*3
government’s argument
is without merit.
suggest here that
not
We do
U.S.App.
States,
Timoni v. United
135
duty
to
had
407,
(1969).8
F.2d
D.C.
419
294
Accord
eligible illegit-
notify all
track down and
ingly,
ap
the case must
remanded for
following our
of veterans
imate children
propriate proceedings.9
suggest
not
do
in .Tranаs. We
decision
failing
was at fault
Reversed
and remanded.
provide
the forms
to
Viola or
mother
Judge (dissenting):
necessary
insurance claim.
an
majority
My inability
ei-
to concur
not at fault
But
fault,
upon my
is
conclusion that
not at
based
ther.
child
“Since
penalize
forth
excuse rather
him.
brethren set
an
We
there is no reason
thought
Congress
of the
than a reason
their reversal
persuaded
are not
Tranas,
supra,
U.S. district court.
110
otherwise.”
(1952 edition),
App.D.C.
252,
38
F.2d at 745.
U.S.C. §
аt
292
providing
expansive
exact, precise
comports
final in
with the
conclusion
“may
any applicant
concerning
death benefits
the Nation-
tenor of
law
case
any
time with-
De- make such
al
7
year
of such
re-
in one
after the removal
court and elsewhere
cisions
disability.”
appеllant’s infant sta-
generous
Since
flect a
attitude
1963,
May 7,
he ob-
keeping
on
beneficiaries,
tus terminated
with the “hu-
viously
required to “make such
patriotic” рurposes for which
mane and
May 7,
plication”
legislation”
passed.
later
than
“generous
no
Congress has
not do so and the
supra,
at He did
110
thereby
forfeited
that he
251-252,
mandated
When
I still believe our mandate Congress rather tuate will subjective our own than to substitute justice in constitutes that views of what congres- distorting particular case. supplanting purpose, or sional gressional objectives own with our usurping objectives, are poses and we belong power For does not us. judges a mis- to think otherwise
take but a delusion. jaunty majority opinion awith “gener- faced utilizes a Janus confidеnce *4 eligible benefi-
ous attitude patriotic and “humane ciaries” poses” reaching point impossible arrive provisions. Apparently this route hope
рursued in the vain that somehow perimeter of result within the “it must Chief Justice John Marshall’s object general spirit law, the Raymond, letter.” Grant [its] Peters) 217, 240, (6 31 U.S. L.Ed. 376 Again acknowledging the charitable majority, I must motivation completely indif- clude that the result is ferent law. would affirm. M.D., MARGOLES, Appellant,
Milton et al. Alida JOHNS District Columbia Circuit. Decided June