WAR PENSIONS

Southland Times, Issue 19658, 7 October 1922, Page 5

WAR PENSIONS

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 5. Giving evidence before the War Pensions Commission to-day, Sir Donald McGavin said the medical treatment- of returned soldiers was now in the hands of the Pensions Department. This was not altogether satisfactory. Provision was required for the treatment of disabilities for which pensions were being granted. He admitted that wear and tear was caused by artificial limbs, but various means could be adopted to prevent excessive wear. The pensions now were much above those provided by royal warrant so some allowance was already made, though lit might not have been intended to cover wear. He described the appeal system available to pensioners as much completer than anything that could be substituted for it. The medical boards were not functioning now because they had not enough to do. It was much cheaper to pay fees to specialists when necessary. The chief difficulty now was not so much to decide attributability as to satisfy applicants that all their ailments were not due to war service. Fewer applications were being granted and this was causing discontent. Neurasthenic cases caused much difficulty. Some had never been beyond England or heard a shell explode, it neurasthenia was due to war sendee every returned man could be expected to be a sufferer. Replying to the suggestion that an independent Appeal Board, not necessarily of expert®, was desirable, he stated that it was impossible for a layman to interpret the technical evidence of a medical expert. SOME ANOMALIES. WELLINGTON, October 6. Giving evidence before the War Pensions commission to-day, Dr. A. Izard, a member of the War Pensions Board, said that many anomalies existed. A man with a leg amputated above the knee was classified as 80 per cent., inefficient-, and allowed 32/a week pension. If the whole leg was lost he was classified 86 per cent., and allowed a pension of 34/-. Two shillings was nothing like aji adequate difference and the whole schedule should be regraded. The attendants’ allowance of £1 for totally disal)led men, was insufficient. Disabilities should be assessed by a Medical Board and not by the War Pensions Board, in which two lay members were able to out-vote one medical opinion upon a medical question. It was debatable whether the correct method of assessment had been followed in the past. Some men were receiving full pensions as being totally incapacitated and were earning money. Their previous occupations were not taken into account.