armourersergeant Posted 18 May , 2003 Share Posted 18 May , 2003 On this attatched document can anybody with the knowledge of what they might be looking for or just better reading skills than me ,tell me what he was discharged with? Ta Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 18 May , 2003 Share Posted 18 May , 2003 Arm The first word has that distinct look of 'verruca', but I think he would have been lucky to be considered 30% disabled with that But the second word would seem to be 'calculi' [stones], and if that's the case then the most likely word to be associated with it would be 'vesical' - stones in the bladder. Perhaps the doc had bad writing, or someone has a better idea. Regards - Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 19 May , 2003 Author Share Posted 19 May , 2003 Stones in bladder would fit with another form that states this in 'english' term, so you must be right thanks oh would this be a purely medical illness not one created by the war or could it be due to conditions and diet etc? ta Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 19 May , 2003 Share Posted 19 May , 2003 This probably comes into the category of 'just one of those things'. There are factors that can predispose, but often it's because the body doesn't deal properly with minerals and salts. A hundred people could live in the same conditions and most would be OK. They can take a long time to form [think of stalactites!] and could have been present even before Army service. Regards - Sue p.s. Now I just wonder if they could be hereditary.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 19 May , 2003 Share Posted 19 May , 2003 Arm, if you look through his papers you might find a reference to 'in and by' or similar in the context of his complaint. This is the Army's judgement of whether his condition is the result of something contracted in the service or whether it was pre-existing, and whether it was caused or exacerbated by his service. That is actually a rather imprecise definition - I'm sure someone else can do better, but I hope it gives you the general idea. Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 19 May , 2003 Author Share Posted 19 May , 2003 Can not see that Jock but there is a section that says attributable aggrevated or non-attributable, he is marked aggrevated. What does this mean? Ta Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 19 May , 2003 Share Posted 19 May , 2003 I think that means it is a condition not caused by military service but aggravated by his service. Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now