Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Pat Gallagher
Question:
123
Mr. Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly)
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will increase the age for the claiming of child dependant allowances on short-term social welfare payments up to the age of 19 in view of the fact that most second-level students are now participating in transition year, which means they spend a year longer in school; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[24049/96]
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Questions Nos. 71 and 84 on Wednesday, 27 November 1996.
Micheál Martin
Question:
124
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will review the awarding of a disablement benefit from May 1990 onwards to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim; and if the degree of disablement benefit awarded could be increased from 30 per cent to 40 per cent.
[24097/96]
Micheál Martin
Question:
125
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will pay unemployment benefit from 15 May 1981 to January 1983 to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim.
[24098/96]
Micheál Martin
Question:
126
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will have a payment of unemployment assistance from March 1989 to September 1989 made to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim.
[24099/96]
Micheál Martin
Question:
127
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will have a payment of disablement benefit from 28 January 1980 onwards made to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim.
[24100/96]
Micheál Martin
Question:
129
Mr. Martin
asked the
Minister for Social Welfare
if he will grant a blind person's pension to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim.
[24130/96]
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127 and 129 together.
The person concerned claimed disablement benefit in February 1990 in respect of an accident at work on 3 November 1989. Following an examination by one of the Department's medical assessors on 4 July 1990, he was awarded disablement pension assessed at 30 per cent with effect from 11 May 1990. He was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the independent social welfare appeals office but did not do so. He had a further medical examination by a medical assessor on 4 July 1991, and was again assessed at 30 per cent disablement and he appealed that decision.
Following a review medical examination on 27 February 1992, he was assessed as being 30 per cent disabled for life with effect from 3 April 1992. However, he appealed this decision and was awarded 40 per cent disablement for life with effect from the same date. This award cannot be backdated beyond April 1992.
If the person concerned considers that his condition has deteriorated, he may submit a request, accompanied by detailed medical evidence, to have his case reviewed. He has already been advised in this regard but to date no new evidence has been submitted.
The person concerned also claimed disablement benefit in June 1993 in respect of an alleged accident at work on 28 January 1980. This claim was disallowed as there was insufficient evidence to substantiate it. This decision was upheld on appeal. The appeals officer's decision is final and conclusive and may be reviewed only in the light of fresh facts or new evidence. Such evidence would include documentary evidence of the accident having occurred, the accident having been reported to the employer, injuries sustained and the fact that such injuries were as a direct result of the alleged accident at work.
Based on records of credited contributions for the period in question the Department is satisfied that the person concerned has received his full entitlement to unemployment benefit for the period May 1981 to January 1983.
The person concerned was also in receipt of unemployment benefit from March 1989 and exhausted his entitlement to unemployment benefit on 27 June 1989. He applied for unemployment assistance on 28 June 1989 and was paid a weekly rate of £26.60. His weekly rate of unemployment assistance was increased to £34.90 on 19 July 1989. He subsequently signed off on 17 August 1989.
The person concerned applied for a blind person's pension in December 1995. Evidence of visual impairment was submitted and examined by the Department's ophthalmic inspector on 9 February 1996. The inspector determined that the person's degree of impairment did not meet the statutory conditions as to blindness and consequently his application was refused.
The person concerned appealed the decision but the appeals officer upheld the decision to refuse a pension.
He subsequently submitted further evidence of his visual impairment but, due to an administrative error, this was not forwarded to the Department's ophthalmic inspector for reassessment. This medical evidence has now been sent to the inspector for his urgent consideration, and when this and the relevant means assessment is finalised, the person concerned will be notified of the outcome without further delay.
