- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,184
- Points
- 103
Compensation for injured soldiers to be challenged by Government
The Government is attempting to cut the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers, it has emerged.
The Ministry of Defence is appealing against a ruling that two injured servicemen who suffered complications should have their compensation increased.
According to the Sunday Times, the MoD is arguing the pair should be compensated only for the initial injuries and not subsequent health problems.
The case - which is expected to go to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday - comes as a British soldier became the 20th to die in Afghanistan this month. Since the start of operations in 2001, 189 British service personnel have been killed.
The subjects of the MoD's appeal are said to be Anthony Duncan, a soldier with the Light Dragoons who was shot in the left thigh while on patrol in Iraq during September, 2005, and Matthew McWilliams, a Royal Marine injured during a training exercise.
After a series of operations to close the wound, Duncan suffered constant pain in his leg and required counselling to deal with "mental anguish" brought on by the injury, the paper said.
He was initially given £9,250 in compensation, but he appealed and a tribunal awarded him a lump sum of £46,000 and a guaranteed weekly payment, the newspaper added.
McWilliams is said to have been awarded £8,250, which was increased on appeal to £28,750 along with a guaranteed weekly payment because of damage to his knee following surgery.
The MoD said a High Court appeal was in process and it was unable to comment on the cases.
It added: "We are committed through the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to paying appropriate compensation to wounded service personnel."
Last week in the Daily Telegraph, former Prime Minister Sir John Major questioned whether troops were being adequately compensated when injured by Taliban bombs.
He said the current system "does not adequately address lifelong disability and, particularly, disabling mental conditions".
Sir John also said the gap between the maximum payment for physical injury of £570,000 and the maximum for mental injury of £48,875 was "too wide".
The Government is attempting to cut the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers, it has emerged.
The Ministry of Defence is appealing against a ruling that two injured servicemen who suffered complications should have their compensation increased.
According to the Sunday Times, the MoD is arguing the pair should be compensated only for the initial injuries and not subsequent health problems.
The case - which is expected to go to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday - comes as a British soldier became the 20th to die in Afghanistan this month. Since the start of operations in 2001, 189 British service personnel have been killed.
The subjects of the MoD's appeal are said to be Anthony Duncan, a soldier with the Light Dragoons who was shot in the left thigh while on patrol in Iraq during September, 2005, and Matthew McWilliams, a Royal Marine injured during a training exercise.
After a series of operations to close the wound, Duncan suffered constant pain in his leg and required counselling to deal with "mental anguish" brought on by the injury, the paper said.
He was initially given £9,250 in compensation, but he appealed and a tribunal awarded him a lump sum of £46,000 and a guaranteed weekly payment, the newspaper added.
McWilliams is said to have been awarded £8,250, which was increased on appeal to £28,750 along with a guaranteed weekly payment because of damage to his knee following surgery.
The MoD said a High Court appeal was in process and it was unable to comment on the cases.
It added: "We are committed through the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to paying appropriate compensation to wounded service personnel."
Last week in the Daily Telegraph, former Prime Minister Sir John Major questioned whether troops were being adequately compensated when injured by Taliban bombs.
He said the current system "does not adequately address lifelong disability and, particularly, disabling mental conditions".
Sir John also said the gap between the maximum payment for physical injury of £570,000 and the maximum for mental injury of £48,875 was "too wide".
