On July 5th I addressed the following question to the Minister for Defence:—
"To ask the Minister for Defence if he will state the date when he received a claim for compensation from John Wheeler (L.D.F./276), Castlegrogan, Errill, County Leix, for injuries received while engaged at rifle practice with the local company of the Local Defence Force on September 17th, 1944; if he was admitted to and detained and examined at St. Bricin's Hospital on two occasions between the date of the accident and December 4th, 1944; whether he is still certified as medically unfit to resume his normal duties by the local medical officer; and if so, if he will now sanction the payment of compensation at the appropriate rate for the full period of his incapacity."
The Minister in his reply stated:
"John Wheeler's application for compensation was received in the Department of Defence on 21st October, 1944. The applicant received medical treatment in St. Bricin's Hospital during the period from the 19th September, 1944, to 12th October, 1944. Following on his claim for compensation, Mr. Wheeler was called to St. Bricin's Hospital for medical examination by the Army Pensions Board and was detained in the hospital during the period from the 28th November, 1944, to the 4th December, 1944. As a result of their examination the board advised that Mr. Wheeler was unfit for his normal duties for the period from the 17th September to the 26th October, 1944, due to the injury he received on the 17th September. The board advised that after the 26th October Mr. Wheeler suffered no further disability consequent on the said injury.
In view of the board's report Mr. Wheeler was granted compensation at the maximum rate, viz., 37/6 per week, together with additional compensation at the rate of 7/6 per week in respect of his wife and 16/- per week in respect of four children for the period from the 17th September to the 26th October, 1944.
Mr. Wheeler appealed against this award. The investigation of this appeal has now been concluded, but it is not possible to increase the amount of the compensation already granted."
The Minister further on, in reply to a supplementary question, added:
"A local medical officer did in fact furnish a certificate on a couple of occasions to the effect that Mr. Wheeler was suffering from an injury to his left eye and was, therefore, unfit for work. When the Department asked the medical officer for further information as to the pathological condition present in the left eye, the doctor said that the Army oculist would be able to supply a report. When the authorities of the Department went to the Army oculist he reported that the man was suffering from 10 per cent. disability of each eye due to astigmatism not attributable to service, and 100 per cent. disability due to conjunctivitis for the first period of hospitalisation and for 14 days after that, due to service. The award of compensation was based on the board's assessment, and the local doctor has not given the Army Pensions Board any reason for reaching the conclusion that Mr. Wheeler is unfit for work."
I am very reluctant for personal and other reasons to raise a case of this kind in this House because I do not want to say anything here that would prejudice any claim this man may have to better treatment elsewhere. I do not want particularly anything I say to prejudice his right to resume work with the company with which he was employed for a period of over 20 years. This man is well known to me personally for well over 20 years. I know also —it is no harm to mention it—that he has not been a political supporter of mine and that the members of the Local Defence Force in the South Leix and North Tipperary areas are taking a very active interest in the way in which this man has been treated up to the present time. I understand that some of them, at any rate, have encouraged him to pursue his claim through other channels but the man concerned feels—and I feel too—that if his case is properly investigated by the Minister and the Army medical officers, it should be possible to give him compensation based at least on the same measure of treatment as would be meted out to him under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, provided he met with the injury during his normal daily work.
I do not think this man could be charged with malingering, because he has a first-class record for work in the position that he has held. For a period of over 20 years he worked as a bucket-loader on the aerial ropeway at Lisduff Quarry. His minimum wage from 1944 was at the rate of £3 per week. Then, after his daily work was done, for a long period of years he worked in his spare time as a mechanic and clock-mender, work which brought him a further income of about £2 10s. per week. That goes to show that he is an exceptionally industrious type of man. He is a married man with a very big family, and, as I say, his average income over a period of years was £5 10s. per week. If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of these figures, I understand that evidence can be produced to the Minister's Departmental advisers to prove that these figures are approximately correct. Mr. Wheeler joined the L.D.F. in response to the appeal made at the commencement of the emergency. He is one of the very few men with large families in that part of the country who did that. He received the injury while engaged on rifle practice on September 17th, 1944, and he was admitted to St. Bricin's Hospital on the 19th September. He was discharged from the hospital without any certificate to show that he was in fit condition to resume his pre-accident duties. As a result of further representations, he was readmitted on the 28th November, and discharged again on the 4th December. I have yet to learn that on the second discharge he was furnished with a certificate to indicate that he was in a physically fit condition to resume his normal duties. Since his discharge he has been attending the local medical officer who, up to last Saturday, refused to give him a certificate of fitness which would enable him to take up his normal duties.
On Saturday last, the medical officer, in accordance with his practice over a long period, furnished this man with a certificate. I understand that the certificate has been furnished for two weeks and that copies have been sent to the Department. It reads:
"I have been attending John Wheeler for injury to his left eye and also for deafness and megrim caused by the accident from 30th October, until 27th June, 1945."
I understand that Wheeler has been instructed to see the medical officer again in the course of the next few days for further examination, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he will then be in a fit condition to resume his normal duties. The Minister will agree that it is a serious matter for this man to be unable to secure a certificate from the local medical officer which would enable him to resume his normal duties. I do not know how the opinion of the local medical officer can be reconciled with the opinions tendered to the Minister by his Army medical advisers, but I suggest that, if it has not already taken place, there should be consultation between the Army medical officers advising the Minister and the local medical officer who still refuses to give a certificate of physical fitness to this man. That is an obvious way out of a very delicate kind of case.
Quite recently, at the request, I presume, of the Minister's advisers, Army officers—not Army medical officers— have called personally to see the applicant and on no occasion have they indicated to him that the Army medical officers were of the opinion that he was physically fit to resume his normal duties. They did not suggest—and I do not suppose that they would have any good grounds for suggesting—that he should resume his normal duties. If such an opinion had been conveyed to the applicant and he had in turn conveyed it to the local medical officer, the matter would have to be treated very seriously, for obvious reasons.
I am assured—I do not want the Minister to accept my opinion on the matter as it is one for medical men— that this man is still suffering considerable pain in the left side of his head and is practically stone deaf in one ear. I am merely repeating now a statement made to me by a layman. It is not contained in the certificate of the medical officer, but I appeal to the Minister, who I know has a very deep interest and a greater interest in the welfare of the L.D.F. than even I have, to try to find some better way out of this position than that indicated in the official reply to me. Perhaps the Minister will accept from me the statement that the average earnings of this man in the pre-accident period were at the rate of £5 10s. per week, and on that basis the man has lost an income for himself and his family of approximately £200 for the 42 weeks since the accident.
The applicant is a native of my own parish, and I can assure the Minister, from my close knowledge of his domestic circumstances, that were it not for the goodness of some of his comrades who are better off than he, and of some local merchants, he would be fully justified in making an appeal for home assistance; but a man with an L.D.F. record such as his would not dream of going to the local authorities if he could get assistance from any other source. He is in debt as a result of the accident, and I make the case now that he should be treated in the same generous, if you like—though I do not think it is very generous—way as that in which he would have been treated if he had met with the accident in the course of his duties.
I notice that the compensation offered of £16 12s. 1d. is based upon a scheme founded on an Emergency Powers Order, that is, the Local Defence Force Scheme, 1942, and I wonder whether it is portion of the Emergency Powers Act which is to be repealed by the terms of the Bill at present before the House. I hope that is so. I appeal to the Minister personally to re-examine this case and to try to arrange for a joint consultation between the Army medical officers who have advised the Military Service Pensions Board and the local medical officer, in the hope that whatever compensation is eventually paid will cover the loss of earnings incurred by this man since he met with the accident on 17th December and that it will at least be as generous as the terms which would have been given to him if he had met with the accident in the course of his ordinary day's work.
