Vol. 428 No. 3
15 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social Welfare when an appeal decision on the disallowance of disability benefit will be made for a person (details supplied) in County Waterford in view of the additional medical evidence submitted.
The person concerned was examined by a medical referee in December 1991, who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. Accordingly, payment of disability benefit was disallowed with effect from 21 December 1991.
The person appealed against the disallowance. He was examined by a different medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. He was then afforded an oral hearing by the independent social welfare appeals officer. The appeals officer upheld the disallowance.
The person furnished additional medical evidence following the appeals findings. This was carefully considered by an appeals officer who determined that it did not provide any grounds for a reversal of the decision.
The person submitted a further medical report in February 1993. This report has also been considered by an appeals officer. I regret to say that an appeals officer determined that it contained nothing new which would warrant a revision of the disallowance.
The person concerned was informed of this decision on 22 March 1993.
I do not lightly ask a question about an individual. However, will the Minister use his good offices to have this case re-examined? The person in question is a manual worker and he cannot do the type of work for which he is qualified. He suffers excruciating pain in his left hand because of badly damaged tendons. I am sure the Minister knows that the three doctors system and the appeals system often result in terrible decisions. This is a case of that kind and I should like the Minister to have it re-examined.
I will certainly look at the matter and if the Deputy has any further information I will look into it. The injury followed an accident at work on 10 August 1990 and the disallowance occurred from 21 December 1991. The person was certified as having an incapacity, an injury to the thumb of his left hand, on which he pulled ligaments. It is suggested that possibly he is a right-handed worker——
Two-handed.
There is no doubt about the fact that he suffered an injury to his thumb. From the evidence presented it appears he had a tenderness in the soft tissue around the metracarpo-thalangeal joint of his left thumb, over the most lateral tendon of the anterior surface of his forearm. I can see that, if he is a person who works with his hands and has to use both hands, there could be a problem. There is a difficulty in that while the disability benefit system, for a certain length of time, will continue to pay on the grounds that one has an injury to one hand, in due course it will be contended that one is fit for other kinds of work, not necessarily the work in which one engaged previously. That is one of the general principles. In any event, I will examine the case.
Would the Minister examine the most recent medical evidence, which is particularly interesting, and explains why this man cannot engage in manual work? I would not have raised this question were it not for the fact that this is a most willing individual who certainly would work if he could. I should like the Minister to bear that in mind. Were he not such an individual I would not dare raise the question in the House.
I will bear the Deputy's special interest in mind.
That disposes of questions for today.
