AUGUST 29, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 111

AUGUST 29, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 111

MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS - EMPLOYEES OF THE FOREST SERVICE THE REMOTENESS OF THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OF FOREST RANGERS, GUARDS, AND OTHER REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF THE FOREST SERVICE DOES NOT OF ITSELF CONSTITUTE THEIR DUTIES "HAZARDOUS WORK" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1923, 42 STAT., 1303, AND THE APPROPRIATION MADE BY THAT ACT IS ACCORDINGLY NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES AT REMOTE PLACES, OR FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF EMPLOYEES DYING AT REMOTE PLACES, EXCEPT WHERE NECESSARY AS A SANITARY MEASURE.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AUGUST 29, 1923:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 3, 1923, REQUESTING DECISION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPROPRIATION IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1923, 42 STAT., 1303, IS AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND OTHER EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FURNISHED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYED IN REMOTE LOCALITIES, AND FOR COST OF REMOVING THE REMAINS OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES, WHOSE DEATH WAS NOT THE RESULT OF INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, FROM REMOTE PLACES TO THE NEAREST PLACE WHERE THE BODY CAN BE PREPARED FOR BURIAL OR TURNED OVER TO THE FAMILY.

YOU CITE ONE EXAMPLE OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE, AS FOLLOWS:

A RECENT INSTANCE IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS PHASE OF THE QUESTION: FOREST RANGER ADAIR BECAME SERIOUSLY ILL AT A RANGER STATION 100 MILES FROM HEBER, UTAH, HIS OFFICIAL STATION AND HOME; HEBER WAS APPROXIMATELY THE NEAREST PLACE AT WHICH MEDICAL ATTENTION COULD BE OBTAINED; FOREST RANGER OSTLER TRANSPORTED ADAIR TO HEBER IN HIS PERSONALLY OWNED AUTOMOBILE THAT WAS BEING USED IN OFFICIAL WORK, INCURRING SOME EXPENSES FOR SUBSISTENCE, AND CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE USE OF HIS AUTOMOBILE AT THE RATE OF 7 CENTS PER MILE.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT YOUR STATEMENT DOES NOT RELATE TO CASES COMING UNDER THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, BUT TO CASES OF SICKNESS AND INJURY NOT THE RESULT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

THE APPROPRIATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1923, 42 STAT., 1303, IS AS FOLLOWS:

* * *, AND FOR MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES AND OTHER ASSISTANCE NECESSARY FOR THE IMMEDIATE RELIEF OF ARTISANS, LABORERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ANY HAZARDOUS WORK UNDER THE FOREST SERVICE; * * *.

THE WELL-SETTLED RULE HAS LONG BEEN THAT THE COST OF MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES GENERALLY IS NOT A PROPER CHARGE AGAINST GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR LEGAL CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PURSUANT TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY. THIS RULE HAS BEEN BASED ON THE THEORY THAT MEDICAL TREATMENT IS NORMALLY AN EXPENSE PERSONAL TO THE EMPLOYEE AND AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS CLEARLY NECESSARY TO OBLIGATE GOVERNMENT FINDS. VARIOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN PASSED THUS OBLIGATING GOVERNMENT FUNDS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE ACT IN QUESTION. IT IS ONLY FOR DETERMINATION TO WHAT CLASS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FOREST SERVICE THE ACT APPLIES.

REMOTENESS OF THE LOCALITY OF EMPLOYMENT APPEARS TO BE THE CONTROLLING ELEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES' STATUS WHICH HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. THIS IS NOT A CONDITION EXPRESSED BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, WHICH RELATES SOLELY TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN ANY HAZARDOUS WORK UNDER THE FOREST SERVICE.' THE USUAL AND ROUTINE WORK OF FOREST RANGERS, GUARDS, AND OTHER REGULAR EMPLOYEES WORKING AT REMOTE PLACES IS NOT "HAZARDOUS WORK" IN THE ORDINARY SENSE, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES ANY OTHER WORK THAN COULD BE CLASSED AS ,HAZARDOUS" IN THE SENSE THAT TERM IS ORDINARILY USED, SUCH AS FIRE FIGHTERS.

ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT IN QUESTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BY FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES WORKING AT REMOTE PLACES WHOSE WORK IS NOT CLEARLY OF A HAZARDOUS CHARACTER. ANY EXPENSES INCIDENT TO SUCH TREATMENT NECESSARY TO BE PERFORMED AS AN HUMANITARIAN MEASURE IN AN EMERGENCY CONSTITUTES A CHARGE AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE OR HIS ESTATE IN CASE OF HIS DEATH.

THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, 30 STAT., 86, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

* * * PROVIDED, THAT HEREAFTER THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY LAW.

THIS LAW IS CLEAR AND IS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. THE PROHIBITION THEREIN CONTAINED WOULD PREVENT THE USE OF THE APPROPRIATION IN QUESTION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FROM REMOTE LOCALITIES TO PLACES WHERE THE BODIES CAN BE PREPARED FOR BURIAL, EXCEPT AS A SANITARY MEASURE AND TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF OTHER EMPLOYEES. COMP. DEC., 347; 11 ID., 789; 14 ID., 542.

IN VIEW OF YOUR BELIEF THAT SUCH MEDICAL SERVICES ARE A NEED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS, IT IS REGRETTED THAT EXISTING LAW PRECLUDES AN AFFIRMATIVE DECISION UPON YOUR SUBMISSION. THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS ONE FOR YOUR SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.