asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that Joseph Devlin, 40 St. Michael's Road, Longford, who served in the Engineers Corps of the National Army, No. 20803, as painter, until December, 1922, has been refused pension or gratuity; that the said Joseph Devlin is suffering from cellulitis of the forearm, due to lead poisoning caused, it is stated, by his service in the National Army, as certified by Dr. J.P. Robinson, M.B., Keon's Terrace, Longford, who was at that time P.T.M.O. to the Military Barracks, Longford; and further, if he will have this case reconsidered, as the man has lost the proper use of his forearm, which, it is stated, prevents him from earning a living for his wife and family.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - LONGFORD SOLDIER'S CLAIM.
SEAN O LAIDHIN
Mr. Devlin was medically treated for cellulitis of the right arm in December, 1922. Dr. Robinson's certificate is simply to that effect. On the 12th December, 1924, two years later, Mr. Devlin was discharged from the Forces "Time Expired" and was not then found to be suffering any ill effects from the complaint mentioned. He made a claim under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, in respect of septic poisoning in the left forearm, stated to have been caused by a rusty nail in 1922. The Army Pensions Act, 1923, requires an applicant for compensation in respect of a disability to have been discharged from the Forces as medically unfit for further service and to show that his disablement was due to a wound or injury. There is no evidence that Mr. Devlin is suffering from a wound or injury. In the circumstances I regret that the claim had to be refused and that it is not possible to reconsider it under the Act.
Is the Minister prepared to consider fresh evidence in this case, with a view to granting the man a gratuity? The medical doctor who passed this man into the Army can prove that he is suffering from blood-poisoning.
I think the Deputy is under a misconception, as far as this case is concerned, because this man was treated for the right arm in 1922, while it was for the left arm he was treated in 1923. I am at a loss to reconcile these two dates. This man was examined by the medical authorities and was not found to be suffering from wound or injury caused during the course of his service.
Will the Minister make inquiries in the case?
I certainly will.
Will the Minister summon the doctor who gave the certificate?
No, I will not undertake to do that.
What class of inquiry will the Minister make then? Will it be a secret inquiry? This is a married man with a large family who lost his arm owing to being in the Army. Are you going to put him into the workhouse now when he can no longer fight for you?
I think a statement of that kind should not be made. The Government and this House have tried to do their best for the soldiers who fought, and I think they are doing it at present. I think the Deputy should not have made a statement of that kind.