Henry Curbishley - advice & guidance

[PRC]

Looking to draw on the experience of those who have tried to get a non-commemoration case through where the individual has been discharged as a result of a catch-all medical condition, the medical board awards a pension for a much more specific condition, the individual then dieing in the qualifying period from the more specific condition.

What I'm looking at his Henry Curbishley, a married electro-plater from the East End of London who enlisted in the Norfolk Regiment at Stratford on the 24th August 1914.  Regimental number 12332. He was posted to the 7th Battalion who were then under canvas at Shorncliffe.

He was discharged on the 5th November 1914 - "Recruit within 3 months of enlistment considered unfit for service Para 392 (iii) (c) K.R - (Morbus Cordis)".

As I understand it Morbus Cordis at that time was used a diagnosis of heart disease where the cause was not known.

In June 1915 Henry applied for a disability pension. Here's the summary of the Medical Boards findings from when it sat in August 1915.

Image courtesy FindMyPast.

So Pulmonary Tuberculosis attributable to his military service. Attestation says he had no previous military service, so the period 24th August 1914 to the 5th November 1914 is the only one in the frame.

From a wider reading around I understand the medical profession was coming to the realisation the the Tuberculosis bacilli in the early stages of infection could actually be asymptomatic in the lungs or with very minor impact, but spread to other internal organs, particularly the heart muscle, where symptoms would then manifest themselves. As the hosts body weakened then the lung infection could kick in, often at a far more advanced stage than would be expected.

A Silver War Badge was authorised for him on the 27th January 1917 with the KR392 (iii) (c) Morbus Cordis reason stated on the SWB Roll. It was issued on the 7th February 1917. But by then it was too late. His widows pension card states Henry died on the 28th January 1917. Filling out the abbreviations and contraction I believe it reads "Died 28-1-17 Pulmonary Tuberculosis contracted on active service".

Image courtesy Fold3

Obviously that's subject to confirmation via a death certificate.

So is Henrys' non-commemoration case going to be handicapped by the vagary of his discharge diagnosis

And has this case been considered before or is it known to be going through the system now.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 6 April , 2022 by PRC
Typo

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, PRC said:

 

So is Henrys' non-commemoration case going to be handicapped by the vagary of his discharge diagnosis

Possibly - the CWGC aren't overly keen on the Pension Records, especially so with TB.

Craig

[PaulC78]

Assuming the cause of death was in fact TB then it looks fairly clear cut to my eyes, the medical report you posted above states that TB originated on and was due to military service during the war. The short period of service could be an issue but I would expect it to be ok.

He's not been put forward by IFCP.

[PRC]

@ss002d6252 and @PaulC78

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm aiming to put this one in, if only to see how absolute the CWGC are about cause of death being related specifically to the cause of discharge being an illness attributable or aggravated by service.

The only case I've had accepted so far was discharged for turberculosis and subsequently died of that condition. However it took two appeals before it was accepted that the condition was aggravated by his service - the second successful appeal only a few weeks before he died. If the CWGC had just looked at his status at the time he left the army then there would have been grounds for rejecting the non-comm case - so there must be some leeway in the system.

My heart tells me there is some similar here. Henry Curbishley is discharged with heart disease, of unknown cause. He subsequently is diagnosed with tuberculosis, which in some cases can manifest itself as heart disease before developing the symptoms associated with infection of the lungs. I don't think he had two seperate conditions, heart disease + tuberculosis, but heart disease caused by tuberculosis, and therefore cause of discharge in reality is likely to be the same as cause of death.

The decision of the medical board in June 1915 to my mind enhances the original diagnosis of heart disease rather than adding something new to the mix.

But first of I'd better get a death certificate !

Cheers,
Peter

 

[Matlock1418]

4 hours ago, PRC said:

I'm aiming to put this one in, if only to see how absolute the CWGC are about cause of death being related specifically to the cause of discharge being an illness attributable or aggravated by service.

Peter,

Would be very pleased if you could/would test the water again - I await your feedback with much interest.

4 hours ago, PRC said:

If the CWGC had just looked at his status at the time he left the army then there would have been grounds for rejecting the non-comm case - so there must be some leeway in the system.

Unfortunately I have had a TB case where my efforts at CWGC failed as though there was clear pension card evidence of the MoP accepting his death as caused/aggavated by service. First first he got a disability pension - and his widow & child a pension afterwards.

CWGC wouldn't accept it.  CWGC took his earlier discharge Medical Board note above all else.  Pension card considered very unfavourably! [as apparently, according to CWGC, MoP were prone to errors! - Weren't the miltary likewise? And weren't/aren't I/CWGC?] Unfortunately I have not [yet?] been able to find any further evidence that CWGC would find acceptable.

Fortunately your Medical Board report seems rather more helpful than the one I had.

Just being cautionary - prior to you spending your cash on a DC.

Two points of interest to me really = Obviously wishing you good luck, if you proceed.

M

Edit For interest: Here is the guide used by the MoP regarding Phthisis / TB - unfortunately I don't have a note of the date of it so can't advise if it was in use in 1917

Apologies, not made a note of where I obtained it either - suspect it was GWF and most likely @ss002d6252 - Thanks for it.

Point (2) seems potentially applicable here - but even if good enough for MoP, CWGC don't seem to like/accept it [or to have not proved an evidence-based contrary case in my example mentioned above - so why do they not accept MoP had a decent handle on such conditions???]

= Hoping for confirmation of what date used from please.

Edited 7 April , 2022 by Matlock1418
edit

[ss002d6252]

29 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Apologies, not made a note of where I obtained it either - suspect it was GWF and most likely @ss002d6252 - Thanks for it.

Page 16 of the first annual report of the MoP, for the year to 31 March 1918.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

Just now, ss002d6252 said:

Page 16 of the first annual report of the MoP, for the year to 31 March 1918.

Thanks Craig.  But when used from??

M

[ss002d6252]

It's a bit difficult to ascertain exactly when, at present, but it appears that it probably coincided with the 1917 RW.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

it probably coincided with the 1917 RW

and a quick reminder - when did that RW run from/to? [??? to 30 Apr 1918?]

M

[ss002d6252]

Just now, Matlock1418 said:

and a quick reminder - when did that RW run from/to? [??? to 30 Apr 1918?]

M

01 April 17 to 30 April 1918

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

01 April 17 to 30 April 1918

So, likely, from just a wee bit later than the death of Henry CURBISHLEY on 28.1.1917

How very inconvenient for Peter and his case!

M

[ss002d6252]

Rejected cases would typically be subject to appeal and re-assessment under the new rules.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

35 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Rejected cases would typically be subject to appeal and re-assessment under the new rules.

Either way the pension card show the MoP stumped up a disability pension for him and later a pension for his widow & child - and the latter was later updated to match the new 1917 RW.

Unfortunately no retained 'PIN 26' file at TNA

M

Edited 7 April , 2022 by Matlock1418
addit

[ss002d6252]

5 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Either way the pension card show the MoP stumped up a disability pension for him and later a pension for his widow & child - and the latter was later updated to match the new 1917 RW.

Probably just an MoP error

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

Probably just an MoP error

That's probaby how CWGC would view it !

M

Edited 7 April , 2022 by Matlock1418

[PRC]

Well that took a bit longer than I intended, but case submitted today.

Home address ties up with Service and Discharge records, as well as the Pension Cards.
Date of death ties up with the Service and Discharge records, as well as the Widows Pension Card.
Age ties in with Service and Discharge records.
Service and Discharge records, as well as the Pension Cards, all show him to have become an Army Pensioner.
Service and Discharge records have him as an Electro-Plater vs Metal Polisher.
Cause of death Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

Now to find out how much weight CWGC gives to the Medical Board Decision that his Pulmonary Tuberculosis had been diagnosed as Morbus Cordis while he was still serving.

Cheers,
Peter

 

Edited 25 May , 2022 by PRC
Posted before finishing

[Matlock1418]

Good luck.

On 25/05/2022 at 15:52, PRC said:

Now to find out how much weight CWGC gives to the Medical Board Decision that his Pulmonary Tuberculosis had been diagnosed as Morbus Cordis while he was still serving.

We all await with interest a further update.

Fingers crossed for you and Curbishley.

M

[PRC]

3 hours ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Having seen him play for West Ham, one has to speculate  whether a note/e-mail etc to  Alan Curbishley  might just possibly elicit some further family-held information.  The coincidence of a fairly uncommon name and the same specific area makes it likely it is the same family.

There certainly aren't many Curbishley's in Essex at that time - just three on the 1911 Census of England & Wales, and two of those are Henry and his wife Eva. Unfortunately the couple only had a daughter, so unless she became a single-parent or married a Mr. Curbishley, then Alan wouldn't be a direct descendant.

Still shame in some ways that Alan didn't make England manager, (although not from a footballing sense) - getting an In from the Cold case through the system would make for a very different "Who do you think you are"

Cheers,
Peter

[PRC]

Just checking my Spam mail folder and discovered I'd actually heard back from the CWGC on the 31st May that it had got past the first hurdle and was being referred to the Army.

Case number 11658.

Cheers,
Peter

[PRC]

On 25/05/2022 at 15:52, PRC said:

Now to find out how much weight CWGC gives to the Medical Board Decision that his Pulmonary Tuberculosis had been diagnosed as Morbus Cordis while he was still serving.

Apparently the Army doesn't give any weight at all.

We have now received an adjudication from the military service authorities regarding your Non-Commemoration case submission (NC 11658) for Private Henry Curbishley. This pertains to your original case submission received by CWGC Enquiries (Ticket Number 00126139).

They have instructed us that this individual does not qualify for commemoration as a Commonwealth war casualty, according to CWGC’s eligibility criteria. They noted that the casualty was discharged as a result of morbus cordis, which could not be related to their cause of death. Whilst it was acknowledged that the pension authorities applied a retrospective diagnosis of tuberculosis as a result of the casualty being ‘under canvas at Shorncliffe’, there was no evidence to show that the casualty had TB at the time of their service. It was therefore not possible to determine that the tuberculosis was ‘attributable’ to their period of service.

I would dispute that on the medical side, but other than a bit of googling of research papers lack the medical expertise to argue the case. So for now that is where it lies.

Also intriguing that I had submitted seven previous case, one of which now appears on the CWGC website, but this is the first one I've heard anything back on. So would be interesting to know if they are being dealt with in order received or are they being triaged and cases like Henry Curbishley not even getting full review.

Cheers,
Peter

 

[8055Bell]

Hi Peter,

It seems to be the soldier's own words that the TB commenced in service, not verified by medical evidence at the time and contradicted by the official cause.  He may not have received the fullest medical attention as he was discharged so soon after enlistment. He's still remembered here though.

What intrigues me is the speed that you gained a response; within three months.  I have a case that's been hanging around for 3 years. Presumably there is now a swifter trawl for cases that are being rejected and they then move into the wider ether where IFCP has more than 1,000 cases waiting.  I remain patient...

Tim

[PRC]

10 minutes ago, 8055Bell said:

It seems to be the soldier's own words that the TB commenced in service, not verified by medical evidence at the time and contradicted by the official cause.

Hi Tim,

Morbus cordis is a bit of a nothing diagnosis - heart disease of unknown origin.

The ability of tuberculosis to manifest itself first via heart issues was being accepted prior to the Great War but was not orthodoxy. In Europe and North America it became more accepted in the twenties. A couple of relatively recent but small scale studies have found in India and Africa where the disease is endemic that roughly 5% of those dignosed by the in country primary healthcare system as suffering with heart disease are in fact suffering with tuberculosis when given advanced western diagnostics. The treatment being given for heart disease for those individuals may even be making them sicker, before even taking into account the poorer outcomes brought about by the delay in correct treatment. Primary care in many third world countries is likely to be at a higher technical level than Britain in 1914/18, so I suspect there were similar levels of misdiagnosis back then.

However spending a few hours googling research papers doesn't make me a medical expert, nor can I validate how well those documents have been received by the medical establishment. So for now I don't feel able to take on the medical experts the Army can call on, nor do I know which criteria they are judging on. If the Ministry of Pensions guidance posted above was in line with that issued by the Director of the Army Medical Service, then I suspect by 1918 if a case like Henry Curbishley's had been going throught the medical discharge process there would have been a significantly different conclusion.

29 minutes ago, 8055Bell said:

What intrigues me is the speed that you gained a response; within three months.  I have a case that's been hanging around for 3 years. Presumably there is now a swifter trawl for cases that are being rejected and they then move into the wider ether where IFCP has more than 1,000 cases waiting.  I remain patient...

I did write back to the case officer asking if the Army were now fast-tracking some cases, as I have another 6 submitted earlier, in some cases over a year earlier, and after getting past the initial hurdle and seen them passed on to the Army I had heard nothing.

By co-incidence I'd also chased up the earliest one separately just asking for a one liner update as it had been a year since it was passed to the Army.

So far it's a tumbleweed moment as far as any response is concerned.

Patience must indeed be our virtue

Cheers.
Peter

[Matlock1418]

On 10/08/2022 at 13:05, PRC said:

We have now received an adjudication from the military service authorities regarding your Non-Commemoration case submission (NC 11658) for Private Henry Curbishley. This pertains to your original case submission received by CWGC Enquiries (Ticket Number 00126139).

They have instructed us that this individual does not qualify for commemoration as a Commonwealth war casualty, according to CWGC’s eligibility criteria. They noted that the casualty was discharged as a result of morbus cordis, which could not be related to their cause of death. Whilst it was acknowledged that the pension authorities applied a retrospective diagnosis of tuberculosis as a result of the casualty being ‘under canvas at Shorncliffe’, there was no evidence to show that the casualty had TB at the time of their service. It was therefore not possible to determine that the tuberculosis was ‘attributable’ to their period of service.

I would dispute that on the medical side, but other than a bit of googling of research papers lack the medical expertise to argue the case. So for now that is where it lies.

On 10/08/2022 at 13:05, PRC said:

Also intriguing that I had submitted seven previous case, one of which now appears on the CWGC website, but this is the first one I've heard anything back on. So would be interesting to know if they are being dealt with in order received or are they being triaged and cases like Henry Curbishley not even getting full review.

Hard luck with Curbishley.

Rejections do generally seem rather swifter than acceptances :-(  Makes one wonder about what goes on / what is going on at CWGC et al.

M

[chaz]

been following this as one Im looking at died of TB. Died after being medically discharged mid war. So assuming he never had it before certainly serious enough to be discharged, then die of TB.