Legal Opinion
Carroll v. Tobriner
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 8, 1966No. Civ. A. No. 1038-64PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GASCH, District Judge.
This matter came on for hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment. There is no dispute but that plaintiff is entitled to disability retirement. The only issue is whether the disability from which he is presently suffering requires or justifies a determination that it was incurred in line of duty.1 The applicable legislation, D.C.Code § 4-527 (1961 ed., as amended, October 23, 1962) provides in pertinent part:
“(2) In any case in which the proximate cause of an injury incurred or disease contracted by a -member is doubtful, or is shown to be other than the performance…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- James R. Blohm v. Walter N. TobrinerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- Joseph R. Hyde v. Walter N. TobrinerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- Kenneth B. Crawford v. Robert E. McLaughlin Board of Commissioners of the District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
- Earl L. Taylor v. Walter N. TobrinerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
3Cited by2 opinions
- Monica v. TobrinerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1966
- Spielman v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993