04 – Child’s age: 3 years – Summary decision

2013/04 – Child’s age: 3 years – Summary decision

Diagnosis: Speech and Language Delay, Developmental Delay, Hearing Impairment, Myopia, Behavioural Issues, Eczema

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted the range of issues which had been diagnosed and the fact that, as a result, [D] does not have any discernable speech – he is only attempting to make sounds, cannot understand simple tasks, has poor co-ordination, has no sense of danger, is not toilet-trained, and has to be fed. She noted that he requires one-to-one support and supervision with everything he does. In addition, the medical evidence indicates that [D] is prone to chest infections, and that he had been admitted to hospital twice in the previous year with pneumonia. He also has eczema.

The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant’s son was receiving input and treatment from a number of services on an ongoing basis (as follows) and, as a result, that he required a lot of continuous assistance at home:

Speech and Language therapy
Occupational therapy
Physiotherapy for left hand neglect
Early childhood educator
Psychology
Ophthalmology
Audiology
Consultant Paediatrician

[D] is also under the care of the local Early Intervention Team (EIT) and is monitored and reviewed by them on a regular basis. The EIT report indicated that he had commenced the process of Autism Spectrum Disorder assessment, and strongly supported the DCA application in this case.

The Appeals Officer concluded that in light of the myriad and severity of the complaints [D] presents with, and the necessary ongoing continuous care and attention he requires daily, the eligibility criteria for DCA were met.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.

Note on decision reason(s): In line with the provisions of social welfare legislation, Domiciliary Care Allowance may be paid in circumstances where a child has a severe disability and needs continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of that normally required by another child of the same age.

Having examined the evidence carefully in this case including that presented on appeal, I have concluded that it has been established that [D] needs substantial additional care on a continuous basis, as provided for in the qualifying conditions of the legislation. On that basis, the appeal succeeds.