Library Collections: Document: Full Text

For death:

a) For widow alone, $25 . 00.
b) For widow and one child, $35.00.
c) For widow and two children, $47 . 50.
d) For each additional child, $5 . 00.
e) One child, but no widow, $20 . 00.
f) Two children, $30.00.
g) Three children, $40 . 00.
h) For each additional child up to two, $5 . 00.
i) For widowed mother, $20 . 00.

For total disability:

a) Man alone, $30 . 00.
b) Wife, but no child, $45.00.
c) Wife and one child, $55.00.
d) Wife and two children, $65 . 00.
e) Wife and three or more children, $75. 00.
f) No wife, but one child, $40 . 00.
g) For each additional child up to two, $10. 00.
h) Widowed mother, $10. 00.

The final rates, therefore, not only established equal compensation for all members of the military and naval forces, but were actually lower than the minimum grants afforded in the bill as presented by Judge Mack. Equality was obtained, therefore, by leveling the compensation of the officers to a lower point than that originally guaranteed to the privates. (19) The discussion of the wisdom and justice of this measure is given in a later section.

The committee drawing up the bill was faced with a difficult problem in providing compensation for partial disabilities. Compensation on the basis of temporary total disability would be inadequate, because, while the soldier might be able to go back to work within a few weeks, he might also be handicapped for life and thus suffer a permanent loss of earning power. Two other methods were possible: compensation for a stated number of weeks or compensation based on the impairment of earning capacity irrespective of a time limit. Though the former is the method used by most states, (20) its only merit is definiteness and ease of administration. The period in which the injured party suffers financially because of his injury rarely coincides with the period for which compensation is given. Should compensation, on the other hand be based on the loss of earning power, there is danger that the injured person would not be anxious to rehabilitate himself, for by approaching his previous earning capacity he would be cutting down his compensation allowance.

The act is based on the principle of compensation for impaired earning capacity without a time limit, for it reads: "if and while the disability is partial, the monthly compensation should be a percentage of the compensation that would be payable for his total disability, equal to the degree of the reduction in earning capacity resulting from the disability."

It is further enacted:

A schedule of ratings of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combinations of the injuries of a permanent nature shall be adopted and applied by the Bureau. The ratings shall be based as far as is practicable upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations, and not upon the impairment in each individual case, (21) so that there shall be no reduction in the rate of compensation for individual success in overcoming the handicap of a permanent injury.

The plain purpose of this second section is to give the injured man every inducement to rehabilitate himself. His compensation, since it is based on the "average impairments of earning capacity," is not decreased if he succeeds in raising himself to his former earning capacity.

A further problem is, however, created by the terms of the act, namely, what is meant by previous "earning capacity"? Is it army pay or pre-war earnings in civilian occupations ? The wording is not clear upon this point. Dr. Rubinow seems to believe that the army earnings are chosen as the base (22) from which impairments are computed. If this is so, there is a manifest injustice. The army pay of the average soldier is not equal to the wages that he has been receiving in civil life. To interpret the law in this fashion would be to work a great wrong.

Complete justice is indeed not given by computing the impaired earnings from the base of pre-war wages. If the war is to be of long duration the soldier will have sacrificed a considerable period from industrial life. Had he continued in industry, would not his wages have increased markedly because of the experience that he would have acquired? To base compensation upon his earnings prior to his entrance into service does not allow him any compensation for loss of potential earning power which he has sacrificed.

The wording of the act is so loose that the decision as to which of these two bases is to be used will probably be made by the director of the Bureau. Ideally the standard that should be used is that of the wage which the soldier probably would have been receiving when he was injured. Practically the determination of this wage may be so difficult that it cannot be employed, in which case the pre-war earnings should be used. The use of military or naval pay as the basis of computation should under no circumstances be employed if it is possible to interpret the act otherwise.