Moya De Paor is a Solicitor at Northside Community Law and Mediation Centre.
Northside Community Law and Mediation Centre (NCL&MC) added 6 new case reports to the Casebase database so far this year including 3 cases taken by other organisations including Roscommon CIC, Roscommon Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) and Limerick Community Law and Mediation Centre. The other 3 cases were taken by NCL&MC.
NCL&MC launched Casebase in 2006 with the aim of providing the public and in particular community organisations with access to Social Welfare Appeals Office decisions in cases taken by the Law Centre. We are now delighted to expand Casebase to include cases taken by voluntary organisations and NGOs working in the area of Social Welfare Law. Casebase is the only database of Social Welfare Appeals decisions in the Republic of Ireland.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office do not publish their decisions, apart from a selection of case studies published in their Annual Report. This is why NCL&MC aims to promote greater transparency in the Social Welfare Appeals system through the Casebase project. By providing a database of decisions the Law Centre aims to provide greater clarity on the reasons for an Appeals Officer’s decision, assist the Social Welfare Appeals Office to take a consistent approach to cases, and assist members of the public and voluntary organisations/NGOs in deciding to appeal decisions and in the preparation of appeal submissions.
The decisions published on Casebase relate to a range of social welfare benefits, and are classified under the various types of payments. Individual Casebase reports highlight the rationale for a particular decision, and can assist individuals or NGOs who may have a similar case. All decisions published on Casebase are anonymous.
One of the cases added recently (G0051) involved a challenge to a decision to disallow Illness Benefit. The Appellant’s on-going entitlement to Illness Benefit was examined on foot of an application by her for Invalidity Pension. Following a medical examination by a Departmental Medical Assessor the Deciding Officer (DO) deemed that the Appellant was fit for work. Her Illness Benefit was subsequently withdrawn with effect from 1 December 2010. This decision was appealed and the Appellant was assisted by Roscommon CIC.
Before proceeding to Appeal, the Appellant sought a review of the DO’s decision. In the course of this review a second opinion was sought from a different Department Medical Assessor. Based on the opinion of this Medical Assessor, that the Appellant was capable of work (if her difficulty was taken into account), the original disallowance was upheld on 5 July 2011. The appeal was disallowed by way of summary decision on 12 September 2011. Further representations were made including a request for an oral hearing of her case.
This appeal was eventually allowed upon review by the Chief Appeals Officer under Section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended). This case report is set out at G0052 and contains important points regarding the role of Deciding Officers and Appeal’s Officers as decision makers to independently consider all the medical evidence before them. Following the appeal decision, the Appellant was assisted by Roscommon Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS). On 21 October 2013, MABS sought a review of the Appeal Officer’s decision under Section 318. On 25 February 2014 the Chief Appeals Officer revised the decision of the Appeals Officer and allowed the appeal, finding that the Appeals Officer had erred in law in finding that the Appellant had not rebutted the findings of two Medical Assessors that she was capable of work.
MABS submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Appeal’s Officer had in effect attributed an inappropriate authority to the function of the Medical Assessors. Specifically, Medical Assessors proffer opinions to inform the decision of a Deciding Officer or an Appeal’s Officer. It is the decision of the Deciding Officer that the Appellant must rebut, not the opinion of the Medical Assessor. The Chief Appeals Officer found that the Appeals Officer erred in law in finding that the Appellant had not rebutted the findings of two Medical Assessors that she was capable of work. The Chief Appeals Officer observed that the onus was on the Department to provide sufficient evidence to warrant removal of a benefit which 14 months previously they had considered appropriate.
Case report G0053 relates to an Appellant’s Jobseekers Allowance (JA) claim, which was refused on the grounds that she did not satisfy the Habitual Residence Condition. On 9 December 2013, Limerick Community Law and Mediation Centre sought a review of this decision. On 31 December 2013 the Department of Social Protection (DSP) issued a letter to the Appellant stating that the original decision should stand. A formal appeal was then lodged, and on 3 March 2014 an oral hearing was held. The Appeals Officer allowed her appeal on 19 March 2014.
A full report of the above cases and other cases added to Casebase in 2014 can be accessed on NCL&MC’s website - www.nclc.ie. If any individuals or NGOs working in the area of social welfare law wish to have a case published on Casebase please contact Moya de Paor at NCL&MC on (01) 8477804.