DISCUSSION WITH(Sanitized)ATTORNEY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00793R000100190012-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 25, 2001
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: June 2, 1972
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Rele2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000190012-6
OGC Has Reviewed
SUBJECT: Discussion with Mrs. Attorney
on applying for the bene it.
1. I discussed with Mr. John Kruse, Assistant Chief /Federal
Tort Section/Civil Division /Department of Justice, several aspects
of the_matter, including the BEC decision in the Rex Johnson
case. Mr. Kruse was thoroughly familiar with the Johnson claim.
In it Johnson had attempted to persuade first the BEC and subse-
quently the Employee Compensation Appeals Board not to make an
award under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. He based
his argument on the contention that he was not on duty at the time
his injury occurred. He also brought suit under the Federal Tort
Claims Act. Thus, he was attempting to avoid the exclusive remedy
provision of the FEC Act with the intention of obtaining a greater
amount by the suit under the FTC Act. Mr. Kruse advised that the
problem in the Johnson case was that Johnson was represented by an
entirely inadequate attorney who simply did not understand the law.
BEC was indeed quite concerned to protect Johnson from the inade-
quacies of his own lawyer. He also advised that he saw no circum-
stance which would lead to forego SEC or to hold up STATINTL
2. On the basis of this discussion, I felt entirely satisfied
that our initial analysis of the law is correct; that there is no dis-
cretionary decision for to make and her entitlements
under BEC are available any should e sought. Accordingly, when
I met with her attorney, Mr. Alan Massengill, yesterday I did not
refer him to the Rex Johnson case nor did I directly invite him to
study his possible actions and to inform us whether or not he wanted
the BEC claim filed. At one stage, I did say that we accordingly are
going to file the claim "unless of course you want us not to. " He
immediately asked if there was any benefit to delay
filing. I told him I knew of none. It is in order, ere ore, for us
to go ahead and file the claim.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP75-00793R000100190012-6
 Approved For Relea 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP75-00793R000100 90012-6
3. Mr. Massengill of course has not decided what actions
should undertake, specifically whether to sue. He
formed as to the insurance nx,crc,.
carried, which I declined to give him since I felt thi w s properly
a matter oni r his attorney could provide. I did prom-
ise to alert attorney, Mr. Charles Woodward, that Mr.
Massengill is going to call and request this. In my discussion with
Mr. Woodward, I told him that from our point of view we see no
reason not to furnish this information. Mr. Woodward seemed quite
reluctant in this matter, however, and I am not sure that he is going
to reply when Massengill calls.
4. I have promised also to a as sengill in writing the
figures on the FEC award the children will receive, 25X1A
assuming that an award is made. is getting this up forSTATINTL
me.
Associate General Counsel
OGC:RHL:sin
Original - subj ACCIDENTS
1 - RHL signer
1 - Chrono
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP75-00793R000100190012-6