I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare who is unable to be present to reply to this matter.
Disablement benefit is one of the benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme and is designed to provide compensation for workers who suffer a loss of physical or mental faculty as a result of an occupational injury or disease. The rate of benefit payable depends on the degree of the person's disablement as assessed by the chief medical adviser of the Department following medical examination of the claimant by a medical referee. The legislation provides that provisional assessments of disablement may be made for appropriate periods in any case where it is considered that the medical condition of the person will possibly further change as a result of the occupational accident or disease concerned and where a final assessment is not, therefore, possible.
Where a person is given a provisional assessment initially, the position is reviewed periodically by way of further medical examinations by the medical referee until such time as a final assessment can be made. If, as frequently happens, it takes a considerable period—sometimes many years — before a final assessment can be made, a person may have a number of provisional assessments. During the provisional period, the level of assessment can vary depending on the degree of change in the person's medical condition. As the Deputy will be aware, a further feature of the legislation is that, for payment purposes, the level of assessment is rounded up or down to the nearest 10 per cent. This provision effectively recognises that assessments are liable to variation.
In the case in question, the person concerned is in receipt of disablement benefit since December 1985. The degree of her disablement has been assessed at various levels since then. It is not yet possible to make a final assessment in her case.
Earlier this year the appeals officer assessed her disablement at 35 per cent which, in accordance with the legislation, was rounded up to 40 per cent for payment purposes. She was examined again by a medical referee on 30 April 1993, as a result of which the degree of disablement was assessed at 30 per cent. She was accordingly notified that the rate of disablement benefit payable to her with effect from 28 May 1993 was being reduced.
However, arising from the representations made by the Deputy on her behalf, her case was referred to the chief medical adviser to re-examine the position. The chief medical adviser concluded that, having regard to the previous findings in the case and to the relatively short period which had elapsed since the 35 per cent assessment had been made, that level of assessment could continue to apply pending further medical review. Accordingly the level of payment which applied up to 27 May 1993, that is £31.40, will continue to apply for the present.
The Deputy had indicated that the person's condition was considerably worse than when she first claimed and that this was verifiable by her own doctor. In accordance with normal practice, when the person was called for medical referee examination on 30 April 1993, the doctor was notified and invited to submit a report on the case. However there is no trace in my Department of such a report being received. The doctor was also invited to attend the medical referee examination if he so wished but did not do so.
Medical evidence has been submitted on her behalf in the past. The last such evidence was a report dated 8 December 1992 from her consultant orthopaedic surgeon which was submitted in connection with an appeal that was pending at the time. This report was taken into consideration by the appeals officer. It was also submitted to the chief medical officer with the other medical papers in this case when he was asked recently to review the position.
The Minister is satisfied that this case was dealt with properly and fairly. A problem which arose in her case was that a reduction from 35 to 30 per cent in the level of assessment would have resulted in a reduction of 10 per cent in the rate of benefit. However, as I mentioned, this is in accordance with the legislation. And, of course, this provision can also work to the advantage of clients generally as it did in her case when the assessment of 35 per cent made by the appeals officer was increased for payment purposes to 40 per cent.
If the person concerned is not satisfied with the decision it is open to her to appeal against it by writing to the chief appeals officer indicating the grounds on which she bases her case and enclosing any medical evidence in support of the appeal. I urge Deputy Durkan to inform that lady to appeal the case and to ensure that the doctor submits the report, which is missing from her first appeal.
