13 – Child’s age: 8 years

2013/13 – Child’s age: 8 years

Diagnosis: Deafness

Background: The appellant applied for Domiciliary Care Allowance on behalf of her daughter, aged 8 years, who has been diagnosed with profound deafness. Recent medical evidence confirmed that she also suffers from Tinnitus in her left ear and Hyperacusis. The appeal was originally disallowed summarily but an Appeals Officer set that decision aside subsequently, in light of additional medical evidence and a request for an oral hearing.

Report of oral hearing: The appellant was accompanied by a Social Worker. She said that as well as Deafness, Tinnitus and Hyperacusis, she was awaiting a Psychologist’s report on whether [N] is dyslexic. She then gave an account of her daughter’s care needs. She said she has to wash her because of her sensitivity – she doesn’t like anything near her ears. She has to give her some help dressing and while she can use the toilet, the appellant helps with wiping and has to put cream on her regularly. She can eat her meals but with difficulty as she cannot use cutlery. She has problems with her balance and falls a lot. She is waiting for an appointment with an Occupational Therapist. She attends mainstream school and, while she does not have a Special Needs Assistant (SNA), she has a resource teacher for 3¼ hours per week. The appellant said she has to spend an hour and a half with [N] on homework every day, and that this should normally take about forty minutes. She said that [N] sleep walks most nights and that she has to be up for a considerable time every night to watch her as she never sleeps a full night. She explained that because of the Hyperacusis, she cannot tolerate loud noises and screams continually with pain in her ears. She said she had to give up full-time work to care for her daughter and now works part-time at home. The Appeals Officer put it to her that the medical profile completed by her GP did not appear to support the account she had given. Thus, for example, while she said that [N] had a problem with balance, the ability/disability profile indicated her balance was normal. The appellant said the profile was not correct and that she would get up-to-date evidence from her GP.

Further evidence: Following the oral hearing, the appellant provided evidence from her GP, stating that [N] has a problem with her balance, as well as letters from two consultant ENT surgeons, expressing the opinion that she needs extra care and attention. She also provided a letter from the school principal, stating that [N] cries and complains of sore ears. In addition, the appellant provided a psycho-educational assessment report that strongly recommends the retention of resource teaching as well as an Occupational Therapist’s report stating that [N] is presenting with Sensory Processing Disorder and setting out her requirements arising from that diagnosis.

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant was a credible witness. He noted that she had to help [N] dressing and also help her after using the toilet, and that this should not be necessary for an eight year old child. He noted that [N] has balance problems, is sensitive to noise and wakes during the night. He considered that these factors, when taken together with her poor hearing, mean that she has to be watched constantly – including night time. He noted also that the appellant has to spend extra time with [N] on home work and that she will have to spend time with her in future on occupational therapy. In addition, he noted that she had given up full-time work to care for her daughter. In conclusion, he was satisfied from the evidence available that [N] needs substantially more care and attention than a child of the same age who does not have a disability.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.