100% pension

[LChapman]

Looking at a pension record for which the man in question was declared 100% disabled from phthisis. Could anyone give me an idea if this was fairly standard? He had only served for a couple of months and did not go overseas, so this seems rather generous. I'm somewhat confused about it as, though he did die in 1918, he seems to have been working for a time post-war and married at the end of 1917, i.e he was not bedridden.

Does anyone know of a good source that gives some context to the pension rules?

[Ron Clifton]

You have to remember that we are looking at disability pensions, so the length of time that a man served, or whether he served abroad, are not relevant to the size of his pension. In the case you mention, the disability may have been the loss of sight in both eyes, or the loss of two or more limbs. In the case of blindness it would not be a bar to his getting married!

Ron

[ss002d6252]

54 minutes ago, LChapman said:

Looking at a pension record for which the man in question was declared 100% disabled from phthisis. Could anyone give me an idea if this was fairly standard? He had only served for a couple of months and did not go overseas, so this seems rather generous. I'm somewhat confused about it as, though he did die in 1918, he seems to have been working for a time post-war and married at the end of 1917, i.e he was not bedridden.

Does anyone know of a good source that gives some context to the pension rules?

Who is the man ?

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, LChapman said:

the man in question was declared 100% disabled from phthisis. Could anyone give me an idea if this was fairly standard? He had only served for a couple of months and did not go overseas, so this seems rather generous.

Generally not at all unusual to class as 100% disabled and to pay pension as such - the authorities did not want a man with Phthisis [Pulmonary Tuberculosis] going out to work spreading  the disease amongst the wider population

M

[tullybrone]

41 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Who is the man ?

Craig

I elicited the name  in this topic from this afternoon Craig,

Steve

Edited 5 May , 2022 by tullybrone

[LChapman]

38 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said:

You have to remember that we are looking at disability pensions, so the length of time that a man served, or whether he served abroad, are not relevant to the size of his pension. In the case you mention, the disability may have been the loss of sight in both eyes, or the loss of two or more limbs. In the case of blindness it would not be a bar to his getting married!

Ron

He had tuberculosis as I stated. I realise that length of time served/locations served are not strictly relevant, however I just wondered if it was odd that someone who was passed fit for service in December 1915, was considered 100% disabled with TB by the 1st of March 1916. I would have thought they would be more inclined to minimise the effect the very brief service had on his condition. I will add some further details below.

[ss002d6252]

Just now, tullybrone said:

I elicited the name  in this topic from this afternoon Craig,

Steve

Thanks Steve.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

4 minutes ago, LChapman said:

He had tuberculosis as I stated. I realise that length of time served/locations served are not strictly relevant, however I just wondered if it was odd that someone who was passed fit for service in December 1915, was considered 100% disabled with TB by the 1st of March 1916. I would have thought they would be more inclined to minimise the effect the very brief service had on his condition. I will add some further details below.

Which record are you looking at that says he was 100% disabled in March 1916 ?

Craig

[LChapman]

Private John Allan, service number 6314. Enlisted December 2nd 1915 in Glasgow, assigned to 2/2 Lovat Scouts. Officially discharged March 1st 1916. Pension record states 100% disability from phthisis (TB). He returned home, worked as a clerk and married in December 1917. On July 1st 1918, he died. Causes of death are given as 'gas effects in service' and coughing blood, however the attending doctor seems to have written 'Uncertain' after 'gas effects' so I'm not sure whether this was just an assumption on his part, or whether he was in fact injured in some sort of training accident perhaps.

I already have a topic open about him in Soldiers and their Units. I'm trying now to gather more contextual info about whether his case was basically straightforward i.e he just came down with fairly severe TB suddenly, or if maybe there is something more to it e.g. if he had been injured in a training accident, might they have been extra generous with his pension award?

[ss002d6252]

Just now, LChapman said:

if he had been injured in a training accident, might they have been extra generous with his pension award?

If there was an additional injury that contributed to his overall pensionable condition, it would be listed as such.

Craig

[LChapman]

2 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Which record are you looking at that says he was 100% disabled in March 1916 ?

Craig

Pension record, part of service record on FindMyPast. Is it possible he was not initially 100% disabled, but this was revised later as his condition worsened?

[Matlock1418]

13 hours ago, LChapman said:

He had tuberculosis as I stated. I realise that length of time served/locations served are not strictly relevant, however I just wondered if it was odd that someone who was passed fit for service in December 1915, was considered 100% disabled with TB by the 1st of March 1916. I would have thought they would be more inclined to minimise the effect the very brief service had on his condition.

See my note above - the authorities would not really want him going out to work - if he did it would not be what they generally desired.

The authorities had earlier learnt during the war that low pensions put men out and about spreading it about at work.

This abstract/note comes courtesy of GWF @ss002d6252 for later in the war.

Image courtesy of GWF

Home Service only was not an impediment - it became more understood that HS, even if of short duration, could activate latent TB and thus it was a condition that could be considered at least aggravated by military service and thus warranted a pension.

M

Edited 6 May , 2022 by Matlock1418
clarify/add

[LChapman]

Just now, ss002d6252 said:

If there was an additional injury that contributed to his overall pensionable condition, it would be listed as such.

Craig

Sorry, I mean gassed as a result of gas training? Which the authorities may not want to explicitly own up to?

[Matlock1418]

Just now, LChapman said:

Is it possible he was not initially 100% disabled, but this was revised later as his condition worsened?

See my posts above - yes, he could be recategorised up to 100%

M

[LChapman]

12 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Generally not at all unusual to class as 100% disabled and to pay pension as such - the authorities did not want a man with Phthisis [Pulmonary Tuberculosis] going out to work spreading  the disease amongst the wider population

M

That's a good point thanks.

[ss002d6252]

Just now, LChapman said:

Pension record, part of service record on FindMyPast. Is it possible he was not initially 100% disabled, but this was revised later as his condition worsened?

Correct.

This is a renewal award only - usually the file retained a similar sheet for the first award, but not this tme.

He was discharged as "Recruits with more than three months service considered unfit for further military service" so there's nothing to say he was fully disabled at that time, just unfit for service. It's likely his situation grew worse over time.

Craig

2 minutes ago, LChapman said:

Sorry, I mean gassed as a result of gas training? Which the authorities may not want to explicitly own up to?

If he was gassed it should be listed, even accidental injuries are listed (I've seen accidental gas exposure noted before).

Craig

[LChapman]

Cause of death section of his death certificate. It just threw me that it mentions gas effects, but like I said, maybe the doctor just made a false assumption.

4 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Correct.

This is a renewal award only - usually the file retained a similar sheet for the first award, but not this tme.

He was discharged as "Recruits with more than three months service considered unfit for further military service" so there's nothing to say he was fully disabled at that time, just unfit for service. It's likely his situation grew worse over time.

Craig

If he was gassed it should be listed, even accidental injuries are listed (I've seen accidental gas exposure noted before).

Craig

Ok that's helpful, thanks. 

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, LChapman said:

Cause of death section of his death certificate. It just threw me that it mentions gas effects, but like I said, maybe the doctor just made a false assumption.

I think there were cases of assumption and also that some doctors were rather sympathetic to the idea that a man's widow/family/dependants might need a pension.

M