HC Deb 10 July 1924 vol 175 cc2495-6W

asked the Minister of Pensions, in view of the fact that Richard A. Tuson, of 2, Havelock Road, Tottenham, received a pension for five years on account of chronic rheumatism, that the pension was stopped by the decision of the appeal tribunal that the disability of rheumatism had passed away, and that three doctors have recently certified Tuson to be still suffering from chronic rheumatism and unable to work, whether, under the special arrangements recently announced enabling certain cases dealt with by the tribunal to be re-opened, Tuson's claim upon the disability of chronic rheumatism can now be reconsidered?


As I have previously explained to the hon. Member, Mr. Tuson received a pension for 70 weeks for his rheumatism. The medical beard which examined him in 1918 found no disablement from rheumatism, and this was confirmed by the board which examined him a year later, and by a medical appeal board which examined him in 1921. It was therefore considered by the Ministry that any aggravation by service had passed away, and on appeal the Ministry's decision was upheld by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Even if the ailment from which the man is now suffering were chronic rheumatism, this would not in itself indicate that the aggravation of his condition by military service still persists, and I am bound to give due weight from this point of view to the fact that he suffered from rheumatism before enlistment and that his service of 58 days did not subject him to conditions which were likely to produce any material degree even of temporary aggravation. The case is not, therefore, one in which there is any evidence that the Ministry's decision was incorrect.


asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that an ex-service man, Mr. J. H. Mossop, 23, North View, Meadowfield, County Durham, was examined by medical tribunals in January and March 1924, both decisions being in his favour; and can he explain why this man, who is unable to work and has a wife and family to maintain, has only been granted a pension for a limited period of less than 12 months and is not to be paid any arrears for the period his pension was stopped?


The circumstances of this case were fully explained in the letter sent to my hon. Friend on the 26th ultimo. The compensation, of which Mr. Mossop is at present in receipt, is in accordance with the findings of the two medical boards referred to in regard to the degree of disablement sustained by the pensioner in consequence of the minor injury to the knee which he sustained. With regard to the last point in the question, I would point out that compensation under the Pension Warrants is only payable where disablement actually results from the specific injury or illness, and could not, therefore, be paid for any period prior to the date on which it was ascertained that disablement was present