Army compensation claims

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

This is prompted by a recent event, but I'd like the discussion to revolve around the general subject, army compensation claims. (That's why I prefer the thread to stay in the Academy.)

MoD seeks to cut soldiers' payout



The Ministry of Defence has gone to the Court of Appeal to try to significantly reduce the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers. One, who was shot in the leg in Iraq, received £46,000, while the other, injured in training, got £28,750.
Both had their payouts increased due to complications, but the MoD argues that they should only be compensated for their "original injuries".
The stance has attracted criticism amid mounting casualties in Afghanistan.
The court appeal comes after two more soldiers were killed in Helmand province, bringing the total number of UK fatalities since operations began in Afghanistan in 2001 to 191.

'Key principle'
Military officials said on Monday that the first phase of a major offensive - Operation Panther's Claw - had been completed in Helmand.
The injured soldiers were initially awarded £9,250 and £8,250 respectively, but they appealed to a tribunal to have those sums increased.
Both men argued they had suffered a number of subsequent health problems during their treatment and that these should not be regarded as separate from their original injuries.

Three judges agreed with them and increased their compensation, but the MoD is now seeking to overturn that ruling.
It claims it is trying "to clarify an earlier judgment about how the armed forces compensation scheme is administered, and to protect the key principle of the scheme: the most compensation for the most seriously injured".

Read the whole article here.

I share the opinion of the UK government, and I think it's ridiculous that you can claim damages for being injured in a war as a soldier. If you sign up at the army, you assume your life/health will be exposed to serious risks. It's part of the equation in this profession. What's the point? It's like saying you should be compensated for getting dirty if your job is to clean up premises. I understand that insurance companies won't cover your damages in a war zone, but the government isn't an insurance company. My humble advice to any government: give your soldiers a higher pay, but make sure to include an immunity clause in the employment contracts.

What do you think about this matter? Could soldiers claim damages? If yes, what's the limit of those claims?

[Ateup]

If anything, the sums listed above seem a bit low to me, especially for the gunshot wound to the leg. Granted, that depends on it's severity, and I'm no doctor, but assuming he took a decent hit from an AK or similar caliber weapon, there was probably signifigant damage and likely permanent disability to some degree since it's doubtful there would have been a clean entry/exit. That little bit aside, in the U.S. soldiers injured or wounded in the line of duty are eligible for disability payments for the rest of their lives, especially if ability to serve is ended. It's not a great amount of money, and it's paid semi-annually based on a determined percentage of disability.

To the principle of the matter, I would disagree with any kind of immunity clause. One of the fundamentals of military leadership is taking care of your people, on and off the battlefield. While the mission comes first, the welfare of the troops is a huge priority for any successful commander. With the idea of civilian control of the military, the commander in chief is the politically elected President, and thus a civilian, so it becomes part of his responsibility to make sure troops are cared for, especially if they are physically traumatized carrying out the orders of the government. Is violent death and maiming an inherent risk of military service? Certainly. However, volunteer soldiers, at least in the American system, are not treated as expendable cannon fodder just because they enlisted of their own free will. Knowing that the system will take care of you, or your family (through the Service Members Group Life Insurance program and other payments), is good for morale, and probably taken for granted since the system has been in place for a while. Reneging (sp?) in a time of war would be hugely detrimental to said morale, and do permanent harm to the volunteer force concept.

From a purely financial standpoint, if you want to look at this in cold objective terms, I believe it's more cost-efficient to make payments to the small percentage of wounded given the total end strength, than make the sizable pay increases across the board to offset complete loss of disability/death coverage, especially considering that only a minority of troops in the total armed services participate in direct combat operations regularly.

In the general civilian population, I think such a move would also be unpopular, since "Supporting the Troops" is a widely popular stance currently, and aside from displaying bumper stickers and sending care packages, having part of their taxes go to such programs is the only concrete contribution many citizens make to this slogan.

[Farnan]

Read the whole article here.

I share the opinion of the UK government, and I think it's ridiculous that you can claim damages for being injured in a war as a soldier. If you sign up at the army, you assume your life/health will be exposed to serious risks. It's part of the equation in this profession. What's the point? It's like saying you should be compensated for getting dirty if your job is to clean up premises. I understand that insurance companies won't cover your damages in a war zone, but the government isn't an insurance company. My humble advice to any government: give your soldiers a higher pay, but make sure to include an immunity clause in the employment contracts.

What do you think about this matter? Could soldiers claim damages? If yes, what's the limit of those claims?

You're opinion is ing ridiculous.

The government paying for wounded soldiers is part of the unwritten contract between soldiers and the government that employs them. You don't join the military to get wounded, and even though that is a risk, its the same as if your job is to clean the premises and a piano falls on your head. You then expect you're employer to pay compensation. Or if you work construction and gets injured.

You're whole argument is ridiculous and sad.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

You're opinion is ing ridiculous.

The government paying for wounded soldiers is part of the unwritten contract between soldiers and the government that employs them. You don't join the military to get wounded, and even though that is a risk, its the same as if your job is to clean the premises and a piano falls on your head. You then expect you're employer to pay compensation. Or if you work construction and gets injured.

You're whole argument is ridiculous and sad.

Farnan, I understand that you serve in the army and view this matter differently, however your example is completely ridiculous so facepalm back to you. If a piano falls on your head during a cleaning job, it is not a normal event, in fact it is extraordinary, which is covered by your insurance (if you have one). on the other hand, military personnel are at risk from injury for much of the time, danger is intrinsic to their jobs. And not just when they are in a combat situation. They often work under hazardous conditions such as mountaineering, dealing with weapons or in aviation roles. One could assume they sign up for defending their country (which is a noble role), not suing the government for money. Coping with pain, even extraordinary pain, injury etc. is part of their job, unless the aim of the training is to produce undisciplined sissy boys.

I feel for those who have lost their arms / legs, however they should think twice before they join the army.

[Farnan]

Farnan, I understand that you serve in the army and view this matter differently, however your example is completely ridiculous so facepalm back to you. If a piano falls on your head during a cleaning job, it is not a normal event, in fact it is extraordinary, which is covered by your insurance (if you have one). on the other hand, military personnel are at risk from injury for much of the time, danger is intrinsic to their jobs. And not just when they are in a combat situation. They often work under hazardous conditions such as mountaineering, dealing with weapons or in aviation roles. One could assume they sign up for defending their country (which is a noble role), not suing the government for money. Coping with pain, even extraordinary pain, injury etc. is part of their job, unless the aim of the training is to produce undisciplined sissy boys.

I don't know about Hungary, but in the US companies are held liable for work place injuries. Same probably in Britain and most of Western Europe.

Also its part of the contract between military and their government. And getting a leg blown off is not just "part of the job".

[Poach]

Soldiers pay should be increased, and medical care to recover from injuries should be government funded, not charity. Achieve these two and yes, payouts for injuries can be dropped.

Right now, most of the care soldiers get after such injuries is from charities. As a result, the money the soldiers can claim goes to good use helping them recover. If they can be allowed to recover inside the system, they won't need the money and thus can be stopped from claiming.

[Captain Jin]

I'll speak from experience on this one and simply say that it's a must. My friend Grady lost his arm when were there in 2005. The Government paid him a lump sum of 50,000 dollars for his right arm, and paid him a subsequent amount in other sums because of the extensive injury that he was caused. He had shrapnel enter through his lower back and exit through his chest, costing him a kidney and scarring him up pretty wickedly. He gets disability from the government now, and they even pay his wife some money because there are certain things he can't do without the help of his wife.

By far and large most of the people that serve and get wounded but don't take major life altering injuries don't claim disability or attempt to do so. Not to mention the payout/disability paid is done on a case by case scenario dependant on your injuries and what happened to you.

You agree only because you don't know anyone who's had to cope with their entire life being altered by an injury sustained while selflessly serving for poor pay.

If you sign up at the army, you assume your life/health will be exposed to serious risks. It's part of the equation in this profession.

That's a ridiculous argument. That means all over the troops and leave them to their own devices after they've been wounded/injured, incapacitated and are incapable of living a normal life?

Here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'em, right?

You're talking about them like they're trying suck off the system or something. Like your taxes are paying for a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings that are loafing around thanks to your hard earned money flowing into their pockets.

Look, I know you're a pascifist or whatever, but that doesn't mean you just abandon the people that allow you the luxury to be one.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The same applies here of course. I am not talking how it goes, but how it should be. For example I think this general rule can't be applied to all workplaces - the army is definitely not one of the normal workplaces. If I join the army, I do it to serve my country, and bear all consequences. I find it a cowardish, unbecoming act for a soldier to cry for money if he gets injured. I understand, that he has a legal basis to cry for money, as it is part of the contract etc., but still it doesn't show moral integrity.

[Farnan]

The same applies here of course. I am not talking how it goes, but how it should be. For example I think this general rule can't be applied to all workplaces - the army is definitely not one of the normal workplaces. If I join the army, I do it to serve my country, and bear all consequences. I find it a cowardish, unbecoming act for a soldier to cry for money if he gets injured. I understand, that he has a legal basis to cry for money, as it is part of the contract etc., but still it doesn't show moral integrity.

So he should let his family starve and live in poverty? That's not pride that is stupidity.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

So he should let his family starve and live in poverty? That's not pride that is stupidity.

Just think it over. If the army is a normal company, it should also compensate the damages of other people it caused suffering / injuries / deaths. So why aren't the families of the victims of the 1999 NATO bombings not compensated yet? Appr. 500 people died, a few thousand lost their homes and became reguees. Why aren't the prisoners of Abu Ghraib compensated for their suffering caused by military personnel?

[Ateup]

If the army is a normal company

If the army, or military for that matter, was a normal business it would have gone out of business decades ago.

[Captain Jin]

Just think it over. If the army is a normal company, it should also compensate the damages of other people it caused suffering / injuries / deaths. So why aren't the families of the victims of the 1999 NATO bombings not compensated yet? Appr. 500 people died, a few thousand lost their homes and became reguees. Why aren't the prisoners of Abu Ghraib compensated for their suffering caused by military personnel?

Actually we do pay out tons and tons of money to people that've been 'victimized'.

[Aetius]

Veterans (wounded and non) are treated like in America, they deserve better and its one of the very few places I believe deserves more funding rather than less.

[Astaroth]

It's the same in every job. If one works in the mining or construction industry and their back is injured in the process (which is relatively common), their employer will pay them a certain amount of money. Every job has its risks and you usually can't calculate them beforehand. There has to be some sort of compensation because otherwise many lives will be ruined.

Now of course you could say that if one chose to do such a job they'd have to live with the risk as well. However, if there was no compensation for injuries, then fewer people would enlist which would hurt the military much more in the long run.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Can you actually answer my questions?

[MadBurgerMaker]

"The Army" is not a normal company, and military members aren't simply employees. They're obligated to "do" more than employees of normal companies. In exchange, the military is obligated to "do" more for it's members.

Also: the idea that people should sign up for the military and expect to be seriously and/or permanently injured for the rest of their lives is really ing stupid. The idea that the military and the government should not then assist these people who were seriously and/or permanently injured while in the service of the military and the government is fantastically ing stupid.

[Jabberwock]

The Government paid him a lump sum of 50,000 dollars for his right arm, and paid him a subsequent amount in other sums because of the extensive injury that he was caused.

Was it through Tricare? Just curious.

[Captain Jin]

Was it through Tricare? Just curious.

You know I'm not sure who specifically made the payment. Tricare is who pays the bills for us while we're active, but I'm not sure once you transition. I'm still in so I haven't gone to TAPs/TAMPs and I think that's probably where they tell you all of that stuff. I could supposedly get something from my injuries but you don't qualify for it while you're active duty because you have Tricare so I don't know to be honest.

[michael123]

Of course soldiers should get compensation if wounded! If you acquire, in the course of your soldiery, a problem or disability which causes you loss of earnings and/or interferes with the normal running of your life, then you should be paid an amount commensurate to the loss you've sustained. Yes, you know the risks if you opt to become a soldier, but that doesn't mean you should be abandoned to a life of limited means and low living quality if you get injured.

Not every soldier is wounded; if your job is to clean up premises, you are bound to get dirty, but relatively few are killed or wounded in action these days.

I certainly think that the soldiers mentioned, especially the one who was shot, deserve their compensation more than the lesbian who was awarded £190 000 because of "sexual harassment" which amounted to little more than minor verbal irritation. I'm sure she is scarred for life, unlike those who lose limbs as a result of fighting.

[Jabberwock]

You know I'm not sure who specifically made the payment. Tricare is who pays the bills for us while we're active, but I'm not sure once you transition. I'm still in so I haven't gone to TAPs/TAMPs and I think that's probably where they tell you all of that stuff. I could supposedly get something from my injuries but you don't qualify for it while you're active duty because you have Tricare so I don't know to be honest.

Ooops my bad. I was thinking of TSGLI, not Tricare. I was reading TSGLI pays you $50k for the lost of body parts. When you said your friend got paid $50k I thought of this.

I found it:

one hand at or above the wrist or one foot at or above the ankle - $50,000

http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/TSGLI/TSGLIFAQ.htm