asked the Minister for Social Welfare if proceedings were recently taken against his Department in the High Court arising from an appeal under the Occupational Injuries Act; and, if so, if he will state (a) date of claim, (b) nature of claim and amount of benefit claimed, (c) dates of deciding officer's decision, (d) nature of the decision, (e) dates of appeals, (f) dates on which appeals were heard, (g) date of hearing in High Court and (h) the court decision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Occupational Injury Claim.
24.
The reply to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative. The further particulars requested are as follows:—
(a) The relevant claims were received on 13th December, 1968; (b) the claims were for death benefit by way of widow's pension and funeral expenses grant. The widow's pension appropriate to a widow who has no qualified child is £5 5s a week. The funeral expenses payment is £50; (c) the deciding officer's decision was given on 14th January, 1969; (d) the deciding officer decided that the claimant was not entitled to the benefits claimed, holding that her husband's death was not the result of personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his insurable (occupational injuries) employment; (e) notice of appeal was received on 21st January, 1969; (f) before giving his decision, the appeals officer had an oral hearing of the appeal on 9th July, 1969; (g) the High Court hearing took place on 24th June, 1970; (h) judgment was reserved and has not yet been delivered.
Does it not appear as if there was an abnormally long period from the date of the first claim? Was the same officer responsible for hearing the numerous hearings which took place?
I could not say. As far as I can see, the delays were unavoidable. I would not say there were undue delays. I should not like to enter into a discussion of the merits of the case.
Nothing can alter the decision now. I am interested in the way the case was handled. It should not take two years to settle a case of this kind. It is unfair to have the one officer doing a case and doing an appeal. That did happen.
I have no reason to doubt the impartiality of anybody handling a case at appeal level.
Obviously, the widow had.