science cannot immediately establish them is neither logical or practical. Thus the view of this Court is that a greater amount than initially demanded is both warranted in this case and authorized by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675(b). See United States v. Bowdach, supra.
The Government contends that it should be credited for having paid Mr. Joyce his wages while he was absent from work. This position cannot be legally sustained. Although the plaintiff continued to receive his "wage" while absent from work due to the injuries herein involved, he was able to do this only by depleting his accumulated sick leave. The Government, as an employer, should not be entitled to claim the benefit of this accrued sick leave fund since the employee would receive the amount credited to his record upon his retirement. Six Hundred Forty-three (643) hours have been used up which are directly related to the injuries sustained; in other words, but for the accident herein complained of, the plaintiff would have had the benefit of those hours at retirement.
The doctrine known as the collateral source rule, cited by the Government, precludes a tortfeasor from benefiting from wages paid from a source independent of the wrongdoer. The rule does not mean that where an employer fortuitously is also the tortfeasor that it should get credit under all circumstances for the wages paid.
In Feeley v. United States, 337 F.2d 924 (3 Cir. 1969), it was held that it would be improper to recover as damages from the United States the value of medical care provided without charge to plaintiff by the Veterans' Administration. The Court specifically stated, however, that this result is limited to the facts of that case. Feeley v. United States, supra. Accordingly, I do not feel that that case is applicable here.
The plaintiff certainly has lost something because his accrued sick leave account has been reduced by the number of hours he was absent from work due to the injuries he sustained. The Government also contends that Pennsylvania law requires that the plaintiff should be denied damages for lost wages because he received his full salary while on sick leave, citing Antonelli v. Tumolo, 390 Pa. 68, 132 A. 2d 285 (1957). However, I do not read this case to say that under no circumstances can a plaintiff recover where he has received his full salary. I would agree with the Government's contention that this case would be dispositive of the issue present here if the plaintiff had suffered no actual loss. Plaintiff Joyce has suffered a real loss however because his accrued sick leave has, as indicated above, been diminished.
No useful purpose would be served by making detailed reference to the medical conditions which have been and will be experienced by plaintiff for the balance of his life. The evidence clearly indicates, however, that as a result of the injuries herein complained of, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer the following medically documented disorders: organic brain syndrome; post-traumatic syndrome; aggravation of a pre-existing compulsive reaction; concussion, and shock to his nervous system. The record indicates that these disorders have been manifested by the development of permanent and chronic headaches, anxiety, impaired memory, and impaired abstract thinking. I am positively convinced that the existence of these injuries has been firmly established and that plaintiff is not a malingerer.
Indeed plaintiff is a most unusual and dedicated type of individual who extends himself in his employment far beyond the norm of most people. As indicated, he has suffered most grievous harm and injury, with extreme discomfort, pain, suffering and inconvenience. He has incurred substantial medical expense for medication and hospitalization, and will incur such expense in the future. Moreover, there can be no doubt that as a result of the injuries sustained, the range of plaintiff's economic horizons has been drastically curtailed. In other words, there has been a substantial impairment of his future earning power in view of the difficulty he would encounter at his age and with his medical history if for some reason he would be forced to seek employment elsewhere. These losses, properly evaluated and reduced to present worth, are substantial.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have not been separately stated, but are contained in the body of this Opinion as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
Civil Action No. 70-226 NON JURY to be tried by
John J. Joyce pltf: Bagley, Kennedy, Sydor & Heck, Esqrs.
vs. 716 Frick Bldg., Pgh., Pa. 15219
UNITED STATES Deft: U.S. Attorney
OF AMERICA 633 U.S. Courthouse, Pgh., Pa. 15219
Federal Tort -- Personal Injuries
sustained when struck on head by
object dropped from P. Office window.
Feb. 25 Complaint filed.
Feb. 25 Summons issued.
March 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by deft.
Argument List of Miller, J.
March 17 Summons returned served on U.S. Att. on 3/4/70.
Apr. 2 Notices mailed advising case assigned to Miller, J.
Listed for argument before Miller, J. for 7/9/70 at 2 P.M.
Jul. 8 Order granting leave to U.S.A. to withdraw motion to dismiss
Jul. 10 Order fixing pretrial procedure. (Miller, J.
July 20 ANSWER filed.
July 22 Notice of service of interrogs (1-41) on pltf. filed by deft.
July 30 Notice of deposition of John J. Joyce on 8/19/70 filed by USA.
Non-jury trial list of Miller, J. for week 8/31/70
Aug. 26 Motion filed and Order entered continuing case to October
non-jury trial list. (Miller, J.)
Sept. 8 Delinquency notice to Bagley, Esq. re: interrogs 7/22/70 meb
Oct. 5 Delinquency notice to Bagley, Esq. re: interrogs 7/22/70 meb
Oct. 6 Deft's. interrogatories to pltf. with pltf's. answers thereon
filed. (Nos. 1-41)
Non-jury trial list of Miller, J. for Nov. 1970
Nov. 2 Motion filed 10-30-70 and Order entered 11-2-70 directing
that case is continued (Miller, J.)
Nov. 12 Defts Pretrial stmt filed.
Dec. 9 *28Pltf's Pretrial statement filed.
Mar. 24 Amended pretrial statement filed by pltf.
April 23 Letter received from Judge Miller assigning case to Judge
Gourley for trial.
Apr. 26 Order entered directing that parties file stipulation by 5-10-
71; fixing non jury trial for 5-20-71 at 10:00 A.M.
trial to be held same day prior to trial) (Gourley, J.)
May 10 Stipulation of counsel filed.
May 20 Non-jury trial opens before Gourley, J.
May 21 Non-jury trial continues.
May 21 Order entered directing reporter transcribe record at expense
of parties. (Gourley, J.)
May 26 Non Jury trial continues and concludes C.A.V. before Gour-
ley, J. Non Jury Trial memo filed. (Rep. J. Miller)
June 1 Memorandum Order entered directing that the U.S. submit
forthwith certain information & fixing hearing for 6-7-71
at 10:00 A.M. (Gourley, J.)
June 7 Hearing on order directing that U.S. submit certain informa-
tion and Gov't motion to amend answer begun and continued
to 6-18-71 at 10:00 A.M. before Gourley, J. (Rep. J. Miller)
(NON JURY TRIAL)
june 8 Transcript of proceedings in Non Jury trial held before
Gourley, J. on 5/20/71 filed (Volume 1, 11, 111 (rep Joseph I.
June 9 Memorandum Order, dated 6-8-71, entered directing that
counsel submit suggested findings of fact and conclusions of
law together with briefs on or before 6-17-71; the Clerk is
directed to file the letter dated 6-8-71, from J.I. Miller in this
proceeding. (Gourley, J.)
June 10 Government's motion to amend answer and delay final trial
disposition filed and Order, dated 6-7-71, entered directing
that the within matter is fixed for hearing on 6-18-71 at
10:00 A.M. (Gourley, J.)
June 10 Government's proposed AMENDED ANSWER filed.
June 14 Memo Order entered directing parties file briefs and fixing
hearing for 6-18-71. (Gourley, J.)
June 18 Hearing on (NON JURY TRIAL), order directing U.S. sub-
mit certain information and motion to amend answer con-
tinues and concludes C.A.V. before Gourley, J. Hearing
memo filed. (Rep. Joe Miller)
June 21 Transcript of proceedings held before Gourley, J. on 6/7/71
filed. (Rep: J. Miller) (Re hearing of sick leave hours of
June 21 Transcript of hearing on Motion to Amend Deft's. Answer
before Gourley, J. on 6/7/71 filed. (Rep: J. Miller)
June 22 Memorandum Order dated 6/18/71 entered giving parties to
7/1/71 to endeavor to compromise; if not accomplished Court
will file Opinion 10 days thereafter; directing Court Re-
porter transcribe remaining proceedings not transcribed.
June 30 Stipulation of counsel filed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.