bobdina
10-13-2009, 12:58 PM
Court blocks MoD attempt to cut compensation for wounded soldiers
Corporal Anthony Duncan was shot in Iraq in 2005 and underwent two years' rehabilitation. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA
The court of appeal has dismissed an attempt by the Ministry of Defence to cut compensation to two wounded soldiers in a ruling welcomed as a "tremendous win" by their supporters.
As a result of the judgment, injuries inflicted on Light Dragoon Corporal Anthony Duncan and Marine Matthew McWilliams will be reassessed by an independent tribunal. The soldiers' cases have been backed by the Royal British Legion.
The MoD provoked uproar among veterans and their families this year when it argued that compensation must be payable only for the initial injury, and not for any future disabilities resulting from appropriate medical treatment.
Lord Justices Keene, Elias, and Carnwath disagreed, ruling that where injuries were exacerbated by proper medical treatment, the further injuries should be covered by the armed forces compensation scheme.
Duncan, 27, was shot in 2005 while on patrol in Iraq and initially awarded £9,250. This was increased to £46,000 by the compensation tribunal. He underwent two years of rehabilitation and was deployed to Afghanistan with his regiment in April. McWilliams, 24, fractured his thigh in a military exercise the same year. He was initially awarded £8,250. This was increased to £28,750.
At the time of the court hearing into the dispute, in July, the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, set up a review of the compensation scheme and the level of payouts. Later he appointed Lord Boyce, the chief of defence staff at the time of the invasion of Iraq, to oversee the review.
Eric Joyce, a former army officer, resigned last month as Ainsworth's parliamentary adviser, describing the government's appeal against compensation awards for the two injured servicemen as "politically bonkers".
The Royal British Legion welcomed yesterday's ruling as "a tremendous win for the compensation rights of our brave wounded soldiers".
Its director-general, Chris Simpkins, said: "We now have a judicial foothold for our ongoing efforts to improve the armed forces compensation scheme. Our armed forces never fail to place themselves in harm's way on behalf of the nation. The least a grateful nation can do is compensate them fairly if they are injured."
Natasha Gunney, of the law firm Lovells, which acted for Duncan and McWilliams free of charge, said after the judgment that the court had rejected the narrower interpretation contended for by the MoD.
"By ruling that the relevant parts of the armed forces compensation scheme should be given a wider construction, the court of appeal has allowed for servicemen and women to be better compensated, not only for the injuries which they sustain in service but also for the consequences of such injuries," she said. "This case has highlighted the confusing and ambiguous nature of the AFCS where, without pro bono assistance, service personnel are unable to readily identify what level of compensation they are entitled to or to understand the often complicated legal processes involved."
The judges said that while the consequences of further treatment should be taken into account, the effect of immediate medical treatment designed to cure the patient or alleviate pain should not. The ruling said: "Although some adverse publicity accompanied the beginning of this case, related to its timing linked to tragic events in Afghanistan, the secretary of state was, in my view, entirely justified in bringing the appeal, at least from a legal point of view."
Ainsworth said: "It is now for the independent tribunal to decide the compensation for these two wounded servicemen, and we hope this happens as soon as possible."
'Pain will last a lifetime'
Corporal Anthony Duncan was in charge of an eight-man foot patrol in Iraq when he was shot in 2005. A bullet tore through his left leg, tearing the thigh muscles, and fracturing his femur. Duncan underwent 11 operations, including one where a metal pin was inserted to improve the stability of the injured leg. His recuperation took two years, and one of his legs is now shorter than the other. The court previously heard he suffered from significant pain and "serious mental anguish". Marine Matthew McWilliams, from Northampton, suffered a fractured right leg the same year as Duncan was injured. He claimed his injury would cause him problems for the rest of his life. In documents seen in court earlier this year, his injuries were described as "scarring on the thigh which caused him some embarrassment, he [has] some trouble from his knee that can give way when he walks, running is limited".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/12/uk-court-soldiers-compensation
Corporal Anthony Duncan was shot in Iraq in 2005 and underwent two years' rehabilitation. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA
The court of appeal has dismissed an attempt by the Ministry of Defence to cut compensation to two wounded soldiers in a ruling welcomed as a "tremendous win" by their supporters.
As a result of the judgment, injuries inflicted on Light Dragoon Corporal Anthony Duncan and Marine Matthew McWilliams will be reassessed by an independent tribunal. The soldiers' cases have been backed by the Royal British Legion.
The MoD provoked uproar among veterans and their families this year when it argued that compensation must be payable only for the initial injury, and not for any future disabilities resulting from appropriate medical treatment.
Lord Justices Keene, Elias, and Carnwath disagreed, ruling that where injuries were exacerbated by proper medical treatment, the further injuries should be covered by the armed forces compensation scheme.
Duncan, 27, was shot in 2005 while on patrol in Iraq and initially awarded £9,250. This was increased to £46,000 by the compensation tribunal. He underwent two years of rehabilitation and was deployed to Afghanistan with his regiment in April. McWilliams, 24, fractured his thigh in a military exercise the same year. He was initially awarded £8,250. This was increased to £28,750.
At the time of the court hearing into the dispute, in July, the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, set up a review of the compensation scheme and the level of payouts. Later he appointed Lord Boyce, the chief of defence staff at the time of the invasion of Iraq, to oversee the review.
Eric Joyce, a former army officer, resigned last month as Ainsworth's parliamentary adviser, describing the government's appeal against compensation awards for the two injured servicemen as "politically bonkers".
The Royal British Legion welcomed yesterday's ruling as "a tremendous win for the compensation rights of our brave wounded soldiers".
Its director-general, Chris Simpkins, said: "We now have a judicial foothold for our ongoing efforts to improve the armed forces compensation scheme. Our armed forces never fail to place themselves in harm's way on behalf of the nation. The least a grateful nation can do is compensate them fairly if they are injured."
Natasha Gunney, of the law firm Lovells, which acted for Duncan and McWilliams free of charge, said after the judgment that the court had rejected the narrower interpretation contended for by the MoD.
"By ruling that the relevant parts of the armed forces compensation scheme should be given a wider construction, the court of appeal has allowed for servicemen and women to be better compensated, not only for the injuries which they sustain in service but also for the consequences of such injuries," she said. "This case has highlighted the confusing and ambiguous nature of the AFCS where, without pro bono assistance, service personnel are unable to readily identify what level of compensation they are entitled to or to understand the often complicated legal processes involved."
The judges said that while the consequences of further treatment should be taken into account, the effect of immediate medical treatment designed to cure the patient or alleviate pain should not. The ruling said: "Although some adverse publicity accompanied the beginning of this case, related to its timing linked to tragic events in Afghanistan, the secretary of state was, in my view, entirely justified in bringing the appeal, at least from a legal point of view."
Ainsworth said: "It is now for the independent tribunal to decide the compensation for these two wounded servicemen, and we hope this happens as soon as possible."
'Pain will last a lifetime'
Corporal Anthony Duncan was in charge of an eight-man foot patrol in Iraq when he was shot in 2005. A bullet tore through his left leg, tearing the thigh muscles, and fracturing his femur. Duncan underwent 11 operations, including one where a metal pin was inserted to improve the stability of the injured leg. His recuperation took two years, and one of his legs is now shorter than the other. The court previously heard he suffered from significant pain and "serious mental anguish". Marine Matthew McWilliams, from Northampton, suffered a fractured right leg the same year as Duncan was injured. He claimed his injury would cause him problems for the rest of his life. In documents seen in court earlier this year, his injuries were described as "scarring on the thigh which caused him some embarrassment, he [has] some trouble from his knee that can give way when he walks, running is limited".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/12/uk-court-soldiers-compensation