Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1970

Vol. 249 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disability Benefit Payment.

63.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare why his Department refused to pay disability benefit to a person (details supplied) from February, 1968, to the date of his death on the 12th August, 1969, or to the representatives of the deceased.

All disability benefit due to the person in question was paid to him by my Department prior to his death. This person claimed disability benefit from 14th October, 1968 and not February, 1968 as stated by the Deputy. On his claim form he stated that he was last employed on 4th August, 1968 and that his illness commenced on 14th October, 1968— the date on which he was first medically examined.

Payment of benefit was made to him from 17th October, 1968 (fourth day of incapacity) to 31st May, 1969. He did not qualify for payment after 31st May, 1969 due to the fact that he had less than 26 employment contributions paid or credited in the 1968 contribution year.

I have a letter from the Department of Social Welfare dated 25 Lúnasa, 1969. I expect the Minister has that letter. I am referring to the second last paragraph where it is stated that if the person was incapable of work and under doctor's care and furnished medical evidence to this effect then additional credit contributions would be considered. This medical evidence was submitted to the Department by me in October. If the Minister looks through the file he will find that this man was left on numerous occasions without any form of social welfare benefit. He will also find that only for the kindness of the particular people he was living with he would have been destitute. His representatives are entitled to those contributions.

The people he was living with were the people who did not pay the contributions.

The man was unable to work.

It was a rather complicated case. I see the medical certificate. It merely means that the doctor examined him on a particular date and said that he could have been ill prior to that date.

The doctor's report says that it was his opinion that the man was unfit for work for at least six months and that he suffered from malignant hypertension. The man was unfit for work for six months and, were it not for the kindness of those people, he would have been very badly off. I suggest that in this instance the Minister should give the case sympathetic consideration.

From the files it appears that the person from whom we were seeking to get the payment of arrears contributions was not the person who would get the money now to be paid back. That would not influence the case if all the other particulars were factual. The medical certificate is an assumption that the man may have been ill in a period during which the doctor did not see him. The doctor stated he saw the man on a particular date and in his opinion he had not been fit for work prior to that.

This man had this doctor for years past.

I will look at it again.

Will the Minister write to me about it?

Top
Share