asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that Private Andrew Donovan (423063) joined the Army on 11th September, 1940, and that before acceptance he underwent a full medical examination and was certified to be in perfect physical condition; further, that following manoeuvres held at Brown Hill, County Donegal, in severe weather conditions, in 1942, Mr. Donovan's health was so impaired that he was eventually discharged from the Army in 1944 on the grounds that he was medically unfit; and that he was not granted any pension; and if he will state whether he will review this and similar cases in the light of the recent legislation covering Army pensions, with a view to having pensions paid to the men concerned.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Pension Regulations.
Andrew Donovan was attested for service in the forces on 11th September, 1940. Before being accepted, he was medically examined and found fit for service. He was discharged, medically unfit for Army service on 18th October, 1944.
Mr. Donovan submitted an application under the Army Pensions Acts, 1927 and 1943, claiming that he suffered from a disability attributable to service during the emergency period. His application was referred to the Army Pensions Board who reported that they were not satisfied that Mr. Donovan's disability was attributable to his service in the forces during the emergency period. In the circumstances, no grant of disability pension could be made to him.
There is no provision in the Army Pensions Bill, 1946, providing for a review of cases such as this.
Does the Minister not think it necessary or desirable that a man like this should have an appeal of some kind? The Minister is aware that the weather conditions were so bad in the area in which this man claimed to have received this disability that his unit was removed from it a couple of weeks before their time. The man is now completely crippled as a result of the wettings he received while on manoeuvres. In view of these circumstances, would the Minister not consider it advisable that the man's case should be heard again as well as other similar cases, because I understand there are similar cases and that the men are being thrown on the scrap-heap?
If the individual concerned can produce additional medical evidence he is always entitled to appeal.
Are we to understand now, as I understand from the Minister's reply, that if a man is passed medically fit for the Army and has been found medically unfit after a period of 12 months or even six months, after having been exposed to the elements during manoeuvres, he will not get any gratuity or pension? Such a man may not have been exactly up to the standard, but in emergency times he must have been passed as physically fit. We must take it for granted that he was medically fit when he passed the doctors and was allowed to join the Army. In the case of a man who has been passed as medically fit and, after being some time in the Army, is discharged as medically unfit as a result of Army service, are we to understand that he will not get any gratuity or pension or money whatever to compensate him in some way for the break-down in his health? I should like to have that information for the benefit of Deputies generally.
Any individual in the Army who is discharged as medically unfit and whose medical unfitness is proved to be attributable to Army service is entitled to a pension. But every disability that makes a man unfit for military service is not attributable to military service.
He was passed fit for military service.
Individuals can develop organic disease of one kind or another without its being necessarily attributable to Army service.
Will the Minister say what additional evidence would be accepted? This man's only evidence of unfitness is that his two hands are crippled with rheumatism and, as a consequence, he has been rendered unfit to earn his living. He claims that that was due to the wettings he received, and the proof of that is that his unit was removed from this area two weeks before their time owing to the weather conditions.
The Deputy is repeating what he has already said.
In view of these circumstances, I make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider the case.
It is not necessary to make any appeal to me. There is a statutory body there which deals with these cases and which consists of medical specialists. These gentlemen, having examined the case carefully, arrived at the decision that the particular disease in this case was not attributable to Army service. I cannot interfere with that decision.