HC Deb 16 March 1926 vol 193 c268W

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, referring to the appeal of James Bradley, of 4, Brierley Hill Road, Wordsley, Stourbridge, against the award of an appeal tribunal given in February, 1924, disallowing his claim for pension for tuberculosis contracted on active service before his discharge in February, 1919, he is aware that three medical practitioners, one since deceased, certified the man to be suffering from tuberculosis in 1919 and 1921, and gave the definite opinion that the disease was contracted during military service; whether he is aware that the local area tuberculosis officer certified claimant to be suffering from an old disease of lung in 1923; that the medical boards, upon whose decision presumably the man's claim was disallowed, certified his lungs as normal as late as 1923, when examining for neurasthenia, and immediately afterwards found him suffering from advanced tuberculosis; and whether, in view of the conflict of medical evidence, apparently occasioned by the failure of the medical board to examine claimant thoroughly other than for neurasthenia, he will have, the ease reopened?


As I have already informed the hon. Member, the representations made since the hearing of Mr. Bradley's appeal have been carefully considered. They do not, however, throw any fresh light on the case, of which all the facts were before the independent appeal tribunal at the time of the hearing. In these circumstances there are no grounds on which any further action can be taken.