B-114715, JUL. 21, 1967
Highlights
DECISION TO ESSA HOLDING THAT TRANSPORTATION IN OCTOBER MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS "EMERGENCY" IN CONNECTION WITH PREGNANCY OF WIFE OF EMPLOYEE WHEN IT WAS KNOWN FOUR MONTHS EARLIER THAT THERE MIGHT BE COMPLICATIONS AT TIME OF DELIVERY IN OCTOBER AND THEREFORE. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF JUNE 12. WE HELD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PUB. WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE WORD "EMERGENCY" WAS USED IN ANY OTHER THAN ITS NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY SENSE. THAT IS "AN UNFORESEEN COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION. THE PRESENT CASE REVEALS THAT AS OF JULY 1964 THE CLAIMANT WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HIS WIFE MIGHT HAVE COMPLICATIONS IN DELIVERING HER BABY IN OCTOBER 1964.
B-114715, JUL. 21, 1967
TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - ILLNESS, ETC. DECISION TO ESSA HOLDING THAT TRANSPORTATION IN OCTOBER MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS "EMERGENCY" IN CONNECTION WITH PREGNANCY OF WIFE OF EMPLOYEE WHEN IT WAS KNOWN FOUR MONTHS EARLIER THAT THERE MIGHT BE COMPLICATIONS AT TIME OF DELIVERY IN OCTOBER AND THEREFORE, TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UNDER 5 U.S.C. 596A MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. B-114715, MAY 27, 1953.
TO MR. LAWRENCE R. MAHAR, DIRECTOR WEATHER BUREAU ALASKAN REGION, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1967, FROM MR. JAMES H. CROCKETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, WHEREIN HE PRESENTED FOR OUR DECISION A CASE INVOLVING EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE BECAUSE OF ANTICIPATED COMPLICATED PREGNANCY AND WHETHER ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF PROBABLE COMPLICATIONS AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY WOULD BE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY WITHIN THE MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 596A (1964 ED.).
IN THE DECISION TO WHICH YOU REFER, B-114715, DATED MAY 27, 1953, WE HELD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PUB. L. 390, 63 STAT. 907, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE WORD "EMERGENCY" WAS USED IN ANY OTHER THAN ITS NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY SENSE, THAT IS "AN UNFORESEEN COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION;, THE PRESENT CASE REVEALS THAT AS OF JULY 1964 THE CLAIMANT WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HIS WIFE MIGHT HAVE COMPLICATIONS IN DELIVERING HER BABY IN OCTOBER 1964. THEREFORE, THE MEDICAL SERVICES REQUIRED WERE ANTICIPATED AND EXPECTED AND COULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR IN ADVANCE SINCE THERE WAS A PERIOD OF SOME FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE BABY WAS DUE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OUR VIEW IS THAT NO PROPER BASIS EXISTED FOR PAYMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN QUESTION.