Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

89.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Wexford, who is an invalidity pensioner, will be awarded an increase in payments to cover the other dependants in the house.

Payment of an adult dependant allowance and child dependant allowance in respect of four children has been approved in this case. Pension order books payable from 16 June 1988 have been issued to the designated post office of payment. Any arrears due will be issued as soon as possible.

90.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Wexford will be reconsidered on an appeal basis for an invalidity pension; and, if so, the way in which the appeal will be carried out; and when.

Invalidity pension is payable to insured persons who satisfy the contribution conditions and who are permanently incapable of work.

The person concerned was examined on 12 May 1988 by a medical referee who did not consider him to be permanently incapable of work and asked to have him referred for a further examination in two months. A deciding officer decided that he was not therefore entitled to invalidity pension.

This parliamentary question has been taken as an appeal against this decision on behalf of the person concerned. Arrangements are being made to have him examined by a different medical referee on 7 July 1988. If the outcome of that examination is the same as the first, then the person concerned will be invited to have his case referred to an appeals officer for determination.

91.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Wexford will have disability benefits reinstated in view of his forthcoming hospitalisation; and, if so, the way in which this will be done.

Payment of disability benefit to the person concerned was disallowed from 19 February 1988, following a medical referee examination. The person concerned appealed this decision, and was examined by a different medical referee on 7 April 1988, who considered him to be capable of work.

The case has now been referred to an appeals officer, who proposes to hold an oral hearing of the appeal. It is not possible at this stage to state when the case can be heard. However, arrangements are being made to have it heard at the earliest possible date.

Disability benefit is paid in the normal manner for all certified periods of hospitalisation during the course of an appeal.

92.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Wexford will have disability benefit payments reinstated in view of his forthcoming hospitalisation; and if he will expedite this process.

Payment of disability benefit to the person concerned was disallowed from 30 May 1988 following an examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.

He has appealed this decision and arrangements are being made to have him examined again by a different medical referee. His entitlement to benefit will be reviewed in the light of this medical referee's report.

However, should he be hospitalised in the meantime, payment will be restored from the date he enters hospital on receipt of medical evidence.

93.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Wexford, who is in reciept of invalidity pension, will receive payment in respect of his dependent daughter.

Payment of a child dependant allowance in respect of the additional child has been approved in this case. A pension order book has been sent to the designated post office of payment, payable from 16 June 1988. Arrears due will be issued as soon as possible.

94.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in payment of arrears of disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Laois.

The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 28 September 1987 to 19 October 1987 and from 7 December 1987 to 5 January 1988.

Where a claimant fails to give notice of incapacity for work within seven days, he is disqualified from receiving payment of disability benefit in respect of any period more than seven days before the date on which notice was given.

The medical evidence of incapacity for both periods was only submitted to the Department on 14 January 1988. Accordingly, he was disqualified from payment of disability benefit in respect of both these claims.

A form requesting an explanation for his late notice was issued to him on 25 January 1988. The person concerned did not submit an explanation. Therefore the decision to apply late notice to both disability benefit claims remained unaltered. Due to an administrative error a cheque for £22.50 was issued to the person concerned in respect of his September 1987 disability benefit claim. It is not proposed to pursue this overpayment.

95.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if sick benefit will be paid to people who availed of the voluntary redundancy scheme from public bodies.

Persons in the public sector who pay full PRSI rates are insured for all benefits and pensions under the social welfare code, including disability benefit. Persons in the public service who pay modified PRSI contributions, such as permanent and pensionable civil servants, are covered for a limited range of benefits, which does not include disability benefit.

People whose social insurance coverage includes disability benefit and who avail of the voluntary redundancy scheme would be entitled to claim disability benefit subject to fulfiling the conditions for entitlement under the scheme.

96.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the present position in the claim made by a person (details supplied) in County Clare.

Payment of disability benefit issued to the person concerned from 26 June 1982 to 5 May 1984 at the maximum rate appropriate to a single man.

From 7 May 1984 payment of disability benefit was due as follows: 7 May 1984 — 4 July 1984 @ £34.80 per week = £295.80; 5 July 1984 — 6 July 1985 @ £37.25 per week = £1,955.63; 8 July 1985 — 14 June 1986 @ £39.50 per week = £1,935.50; Total amount due = £4,186.93.

In the period 7 May 1984 to 14 June 1986 a total of £3,356.36 was actually issued to the person concerned. £824 was refunded to the Mid-Western Health Board in respect of supplementary welfare allowance paid during this period and a balance of £6.55 was due to the claimant which issued to him on 29 August 1986. There are no further arrears due for this period.

97.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange to have an overpayment on invalidity pension rechecked in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12, as the amount claimed to have been overpaid by his Department seems excessive; and in view of the circumstance of the family concerned, if he will arrange for any agreed overpayment to be collected at £1 per week and not at the rate of £5.60 which is being proposed by his Department.

The person concerned is in receipt of invalidity pension from 11 June 1981. He is presently paid at the weekly rate of £50.90 (£48.50 personal rate and £5.40 half-rate in respect of one qualified child dependant, less deductions of £3 per week to recover an overpayment of £315).

This overpayment occurred in the period 25 February 1988 to 4 May 1988 when he was paid full adult dependant allowance in respect of his wife who was receiving disability benefit in her own right during the same period. It is not considered that the £3 a week deduction is excessive in the circumstances.

Payment of disability benefit to the wife of the person concerned was liable to a deduction of £5.60 per week. This deduction was made to facilitate recovery of an overpayment incurred while she was in receipt of disability benefit and supplementary welfare allowance concurrently. The wife of the person concerned has ceased to claim disability benefit.

If the person concerned is of the opinion that he is now entitled to an adult dependant increase in respect of his wife, he should apply to the Department for this increase. He should forward documentary evidence of his wife's circumstances, in support of his claim.

98.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in Dublin 17 has had a disability benefit discontinued to her; and if benefit can be restored in view of the fact that this person is unable to return to work due to an injury sustained there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The person concerned was in receipt of disability benefit from 19 September 1985 and payment was issued to 6 June 1987.

Payment was disallowed from 8 June 1987 following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that she was capable of work.

She appealed against the disallowance and was examined by a different medical referee who also expressed the opinion that she was capable of work. Her case was then referred to an appeals officer who upheld the decision to disallow payment of disability benefit from 8 June 1987 to 2 November 1987, the date of the latest medical certificate before him. The decision of the appeals officer is final and can only be altered in the light of new facts or fresh evidence.

A further medical examination has been arranged to establish her entitlement to payment of disability benefit beyond 2 November 1987.

The disablement benefit payment of £675 mentioned by the Deputy in the note submitted with the question was a once-off payment in respect of an assessment of 2 per cent disablement for life.

99.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason unemployment assistance was not granted to a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon; and if he will give a detailed breakdown of the way in which his income was assessed.

An applicant for unemployment benefit who is a landholder but does not satisfy the contribution condition of having 78 paid contributions in a three year period is not entitled to unemployment benefit if the income from his holding exceeds £4 daily.

The person concerned is a landowner who did not satisfy the contribution condition of having 78 paid contributions in a three year period. The net yearly income from his holding after having taken into consideration purchases amounting to £1,610 and operating expenses of £3,828 was assessed at £2,254 per annum or £6.17 per day. As this exceeded the £4 daily limit his claim for unemployment was accordingly disallowed.

He recently appealed against this decision and arrangements have been made to have an oral hearing of his appeal this week. His entitlement to unemployment benefit will be determined in the light of the decision of the appeals officer. It is understood the person concerned does not wish to claim unemployment assistance.

Question No. 100 withdrawn.

Barr
Roinn