VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia denying appellant a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the United States Veterans’ Bureau to award him compensation for total- disabilities alleged to result from the “permanent loss of the use of both feet,” as provided in paragraph (3) of section 202, of the World War Veterans’ Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 618 (38 USCA § 473).
It appears that there was issued to appellant a policy of war risk insurance in the amount of $10,000, payable upon his death or total permanent disability. The Veterans’ Bureau ruled that the policy had matured because of appellant’s total permanent disability, on April 20, 1918, and paid him disability benefits thereunder until December 19, 1921, refunding to him all premiums collected thereunder since the date of its maturity. Thereafter the Veterans’ Bureau discontinued the payment of disability benefits and 'required appellant to reinstate his war risk insurance policy, and later to convert it into a government life insurance policy, deducting amounts due as premiums monthly from his compensation, up to and including the month of April, 1929.
Appellant, failing to get relief from this ruling in the Bureau, filed suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on the original war risk insurance policy, claiming that it had matured on April 20, 1918, by reason of the loss of the use of both feet. Issue was joined thereon, and the' court entered a special finding to the effect that plaintiff had suffered the loss of the use of both feet on April 20, 1918, which, under the statute, constituted total permanent disability. A judgment was thereupon entered on February 4, 1929, for all disability benefits due under the original policy not theretofore paid, and for all premiums collected since the date of the maturity of said policy not theretofore refunded. Appellee Director, in compliance with the judgment, paid the disability benefits thereunder, but refused to refund to appellant the amounts deducted as premiums, and continued to deduct these amounts from the amount allowed appellant as compensation up until the filing of the petition in the present ease. This ease therefore grows out of the failure of the Bureau to rerate appellant for compensation in compliance with the judgment of the court.
The case is resolved to the question of whether or not the finding of fact by the Supreme Court of the District to the effect that appellant has injuries which constitute “the permanent loss of the use of both feet from and after the 20th day of April, 1918,” is res adjudicata and conclusive upon the Director in the determination of the issues of fact arising in a claim by the plaintiff for compensation under the War Veterans’ Act of 1924.
We are of opinion that the findings of fact made by the court, however persuasive, are not conclusively binding upon the Director in the matter of rerating for compensation. Section 205 of the Act (38 USCA § 494) provides that the Bureau, on- its own motion, “may at any time review an award and, in accordance with the facts found upon such review, may end, diminish, or increase the compensation previously awarded.” Authority is given the Bureau under paragraph (4), § 202, of the Act (38 USCA § 477), to establish a “schedule of ratings of reductions in earning capacity from injuries or combinations of injuries shall be adopted and applied by the bureau,” under which ratings may be as high as 100 per cent. “The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations.” The Bureau, in finally adjudicating appellant’s ease, rated his disability at 70 per cent., and fixed his compensation accordingly. Section 5 of the Act (38 USCA § 426) provides that the decision reached in a ease of this sort by the Bureau on questions of fact shall be conclusive.
While it is true that the trial court found as a fact that plaintiff had suffered the loss' of the use of both feet, the court was there determining an insurance case arising under a different article of the statute from the ease here under consideration; and the question before the court was whether or not plaintiff was permanently and totally disabled, either by the loss of the use of his feet or for any other reason, at a time when his insurance contract was in force. The Director here'is exercising his discretion and judgment in rating for compensation purposes a rating based upon plaintiff’s individual impairment in earning capacity. The Director may well have found that, though there is a substantial loss of the use of both feet, plaintiff still possesses considerable earning capacity, which could be taken into consideration in determining the percentage of incapacity.
In Silberschein v. United States, 266 U. S. 221, 45 S. Ct. 69; 71, 69 L. Ed. 256, the court, in respect of the binding effect of a finding by a tribunal outside of the Veterans’ Bureau, said: “These are all matters bearing, at most, upon the soundness of the Director’s determination upon a matter properly submitted to- his judgment, and fall far short of establishing its arbitrary character.” In other words, the finding of the court in the present ease does not reduce the discretionary power of the Director, in fixing compensation, to a mere ministerial duty.”
From this review o-f the provisions of the act it is apparent that the judgment of the court in the insurance ease is not conclusive or res adjudicata upon the Bureau in establishing a rerating for compensation purposes. The findings of the Bureau are not made final and conclusive under the statute, but are subject to review and change by the Bureau “on its own motion,” whenever the Director may deem it advisable. It follows that the broad discretionary power thus conferred cannot be controlled by mandamus.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".