U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1965

Frederick C. Zangardi v. Walter N. Tobriner, President, Board of D. C. Commissioners

Frederick C. Zangardi v. Walter N. Tobriner, President, Board of D. C. Commissioners
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 22, 1965 · Prettyman, Fahy, Burger
348 F.2d 370; 121 U.S. App. D.C. 141; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5170 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Norman H. Heller, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.

Frederick C. Zangardi v. Walter N. Tobriner, President, Board of D. C. Commissioners

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, was retired under Section 4-526 (D.C.Code, 1961) for disability found not to have been contracted in the performance of duty. On appeal from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appel-lees, Board of Commissioners, he urges that he should have been retired at the higher annuity specified by Section 4-527 (D.C.Code, 1961) since the disease which caused his disability was concededly aggravated by the performance of duty. In 1962 subsequent to appellant’s retirement, and therefore not applicable to his case, a new subsection was added to the statute by Congress. It does provide for annuity at the higher rate when disability is attributable to aggravation, due to the performance of duty, of a disease not contracted in the performance of duty. D.C.Code § 4-527(2) (Supp. IV, 1965).

On the basis of the language of the 1961 D.C.Code § 4-527, as for many years it was administratively interpreted contrarily to appellant’s position, followed by explicit Congressional acquiescence in such interpretation when in 1962 Congress amended Section 4-527 so as clearly to authorize the higher annuity for such aggravation as here occurred, we conclude that the retirement pay of appellant was properly computed under Section 4-526 rather than under Section 4-527 as it read prior to the 1962 amendment.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.