asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give an explanation for the delay involving a period from 17 January to 12 April 1989 in arriving at a decision to provide an oral hearing in relation to the disability benefit claim of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo and also for the further delay in determining the date of the hearing.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
44.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 20 September 1988 after which date payment was disallowed following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. He expressed dissatisfaction with the disallowance of payment and was examined on 16 November 1988 by a different medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.
The person submitted a formal notice of appeal on 17 January 1989. He also submitted detailed medical evidence of his condition and his case was forwarded to the medical adviser for review. The medical adviser considered all the medical evidence available to him and decided that there were no grounds which would warrant a revision of the opinions already given by the medical referees. This case has now been submitted to an appeals officer for decision.
An appeals officer may decide an appeal summarily if he feels there is enough evidence to do so. In this case, however, the appeals officer has decided that an oral hearing is warranted and the person concerned will be advised of the arrangements for this hearing as soon as possible.
45.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in the payment of disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Louth; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this person was working for the past nine years and the only break in her employment was from May 1988 when she was on maternity benefit for 14 weeks and disability benefit for six weeks; when the six weeks arrears will be paid; and when benefit will be restored.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 21 March 1989. She is not qualified for disability benefit as, according to the records of my Department, she has less than the minimum of 39 contributions paid or credited in 1987-88, the contribution year governing her claim.
The person concerned has been informed of the position and requested to forward details of any further contribution details which she might have for the 1987-88 contribution year. Her claim will be reviewed in the light of any information received.