United States v. Beckett

4 Citing cases

  1. Burke v. United States

    509 F.2d 1227 (7th Cir. 1975)

    We hold that presentation of the opinions of private physicians, which are contrary to those of the induction center's doctors, is not such a "highly unusual circumstance." Petitioner relies primarily on United States v. Beckett, 457 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1972), and Kempf v. Commanding Officer, Fort Des Moines Examining and Entrance Station, 339 F. Supp. 320 (D.Ia. 1972). In Beckett, the examining physician erroneously believed that a generalized allergic reaction to insect bites or stings was not a "cause for rejection."

  2. United States v. Wilson

    478 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 3 times
    In United States v. Wilson, 478 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1973), the court held that arbitrary action by AFEES will warrant a court's taking corrective action.

    But if the record indicates arbitrary action by AFEES or a deficiency in prescribed procedures that results in prejudice to the registrant, this court can take corrective action. United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Black, 456 F.2d 1297, 1298 (9th Cir. 1972); cf. United States v. Beckett, 457 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1972). We choose to do so in this case.

  3. United States v. Wilson

    473 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    The record reveals that Wilson was twice examined by AFEES psychiatrists and both times found qualified. There is no indication that an erroneous standard of medical qualification was applied as in United States v. Beckett, 457 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1972). On the contrary, the uncontradicted facts in the record indicate that the proper standard was applied.

  4. Burke v. United States

    371 F. Supp. 349 (E.D. Wis. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225 (1911). The petitioner, however, contends that the court is not required to defer to the examining physicians because the question of entitlement to an exemption on medical grounds, as opposed to existence of the illness itself, is alleged to be a question of law. Support for his contention is said to be found in United States v. Beckett, 457 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1972), and Kempf v. Commanding Officer, Des Moines Examining and Entrance Station, 339 F. Supp. 320 (S.D.Iowa, 1972). Beckett involved a determination by an Army doctor that the registrant had a generalized allergic reaction to bee stings.