asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) in County Roscommon has been refused disability benefit since October, 1968; and whether in view of all the circumstances he will have this claim considered forthwith.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disability Benefit Payment.
21.
Payment of disability benefit was terminated in October, 1968 when, following examination by a medical referee, a deciding officer decided that the claimant was no longer incapable of work. Since October, 1968 the claimant has been examined on 12 occasions by different medical referees and on two occasions by specialists. The finding on each examination was that the claimant was not incapable of work. The decision to refuse benefit was upheld by appeals officers on nine different occasions. In arriving at their decisions the appeals officers had before them the reports of the medical referees as well as those of the specialists. In these circumstances payment of disability benefit cannot be allowed.
The Minister states that this patient was examined by a number of specialists. It was stated he was fit for work but only light work. Where can a man of over 40 years get light work nowadays?
There is no question of light work.
There is. The orthopaedic surgeon said light work.
The first specialist who examined the man reported he was completely fit for his pre-accident work. The second specialist said: "In my opinion this man's physical injuries seem to have been rather trivial."
I do not understand this kind of thinking. Would the Minister explain to us why all these examinations—about a dozen—were necessary? Have the Government not faith in the competence of the men who carried out the examinations?
The Deputy does not understand the purport of this.
I understand the word "twelve".
This is all to the benefit of the person who may be incapacitated months after he has been declared to be fit for work. It is only right that the person should have the opportunity of being re-examined at different times if he claims that the disability has recurred
This is a typical example of the way the present Government waste money.
It is not.
Of course, it is. You get a report, not one but 12 and you are still on the game apparently.
Question No. 22.
This is the worker's right. Does the Deputy wish to deprive a disabled person of payment?
The Minister may make this kind of remark if he likes. I have more regard for the workers than the Minister has.
I am stating what is a fact. A person who is disabled may be declared by a doctor today to be fit for work. He surely has the right to ask for a further examination in a few months time if he feels his disability has recurred. The Deputy would deprive him of that.
With respect to the Minister, I have stood up for the rights of the workers in this House in a way the Government have not but I despise this pretence. Was the result the same on the 12 occasions?
Each time the claimant asked for it. He is entitled to get it.
Did the same doctor examine him each time?
No, Different doctors.
Does the Minister not know how the medical profession stand up for one another?
Ask Deputy O'Connell.