§ 2. Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. A. E. Rogers, of 35, Mount Vernon Street, Liverpool, who joined up for war service in January, 1917, and was discharged from hospital suffering from neurosis; and classified C 3, in August 1917, who rejoined in January, 1918, and after four months was again admitted into hospital suffering from so-called shell-shock, being finally discharged in October, 1918, and has had both pension and treatment stopped on the grounds that his condition is not now due to war service; and whether, in view of the Ministry's acceptance previously that the disability, neurosis, was attributable to service and the man's total incapacity for work, he will now remove him from the liability of being maintained by the guardians of the poor in the West Derby Union of Lancashire?
§ Major TRYONI am fully aware of the facts of this case. On the occasion of his first enlistment, after three weeks' effective service at home, Mr. Rogers spent 10 months in hospital on account of a condition described as disseminated spinal sclerosis. On his second enlistment, he did four months' work in the 1915 Liverpool docks, followed by six months in hospital on account of neurosis. In this case, which has been given every consideration, I am advised that whatever elements, if any, in the case originally may have been connected with service, the man's present condition is not one in regard to which the Ministry would be justified in taking further action.
§ Mr. HAYESIn view of the fact that it was the Ministry's doctors themselves who accepted this man's condition as due to his service while he was with the colours, and that the local authorities are now maintaining this man for a disability which was at one time accepted by the Ministry, cannot the case be reviewed?
§ Major TRYONIt is true that this man did obtain payment from the Ministry, but I have evidence that on more than one occasion he deliberately deceived the medical board.
§ Mr. HAYESHas the pensioner himself had an opportunity of refuting this allegation that is now made for the first time, as far as I am concerned?
§ Major TRYONThe claim that this man was injured by shell shock was quite clearly disproved owing to the fact that he never went overseas and has never been under fire.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not the opinion expressed by his medical advisers was contrary to the subsequent diagnosis that has been formed?
§ Major TRYONYes, undoubtedly, mistakes were made owing to the way in which this man deceived us.
§ Mr. HAYESAs this is a very important matter for the ratepayers of Liverpool, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the doctors who first of all examined this man have since been asked for their opinion as to his present condition?
§ Major TRYONI have very full evidence, and I shall be happy to explain to the hon. Member how this man has on two occasions at least deceived the medical boards.