asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether his attention has been drawn to a recent report in a Sunday newspaper regarding the alleged failure of his Department to pay disability benefit to the father of a large family in Galway, despite his entitlement to it; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Galway Disability Benefit Claim.
9.
My attention was drawn to the newspaper article referred to and I had the allegation therein fully investigated.
The facts are that the claimant received a facial injury on Easter Sunday, the 17th April, 1960. He made a claim for disability benefit and submitted two first medical certificates, one from the local hospital certifying examination and unfitness for work on the 17th April, and one from a private practitioner certifying examination and unfitness for work on the 18th April. As benefit was not payable for the first three days of incapacity, no payment was due on those certificates.
No further medical evidence of incapacity was received from the claimant, and in the absence of such evidence the claim lapsed.
The insured person wrote to the Department on the 30th December, 1960, that is, more than eight months afterwards, enquiring about his claim. He was requested to furnish medical evidence to cover the period of his incapacity. He supplied this evidence on the 10th January, 1961, indicating that his incapacity had lasted for only twelve days, excluding Sundays, from the 17th April to the 1st May. As more than six months had elapsed since the termination of his illness, the Deciding Officer, who is statutorily appointed to decide these claims, was precluded by sub-article (8) of Article 14 of the Social Welfare (Claims and Payments) Regulations, 1952, from allowing payment on the claim. This sub-article provides that no disability benefit shall be paid in respect of any period more than six months before the date of the submission of the evidence of incapacity.
It is clear that the man himself was at fault in not obtaining a certificate during the remainder of his illness or within six months after it had commenced. If he had complained at any time during the six months following his initial claim (i.e. up to mid-October last) the payment could have been made on furnishing the evidence which he did furnish in January. I am satisfied that there was no foundation for the allegations contained in the newspaper article.