Case Studies » Domiciliary Care Allowance » Domiciliary Care Allowance - Case from 2015 Annual Report (ref: 2015/03)

Question at issue: Date of award

Background: The appellant made a claim for Domiciliary Care Allowance in 2010, in respect of her son who was 6 years old at the time.  Her claim was disallowed and she made an appeal against the decision.  The appeal was disallowed summarily in 2011.  She reapplied in 2014 and the second claim was also disallowed.  She made an appeal and, in reviewing the claim in connection with the appeal, the Deciding Officer revised the decision and awarded the allowance.  The appellant wrote to the Department subsequently, requesting a review of the date of award.  The Deciding Officer indicated that he considered a revision of his decision was not warranted.

Oral hearing: The appellant attended alone.  She confirmed that her son had a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  She referred to evidence submitted as part of her claim in 2010 and said that the family doctor, in completing the ability/disability profile, had assessed mental health/behaviour as being affected to a severe degree and learning/intelligence to a moderate degree.  She went on to say that at the time of her application in 2014, mental health/behaviour was still assessed as being affected to a severe degree, while learning/intelligence was similarly assessed.  She said that her son had been taking psycho-stimulant medication since 2010 and that the prescribed dose had not changed.

The appellant submitted that the level of care required by her son in 2010 was the same as that required in 2014.  She provided an outline of his particular care requirements.  She said that, since 2010, he could not be left alone at any time; he has to be spoon-fed at all meals, he must still be bathed and dressed or undressed, and accompanied to the bathroom in case he floods it.  She reiterated that this level of care had not changed since 2010.  In reply to the Appeals Officer’s question as to why she had not claimed Domiciliary Care Allowance again until 2014, she said that her son was attending a psychiatrist who had told her to apply as he believed that the child was eligible.

Consideration: The Appeals Officer noted that the question as to entitlement had been determined by an Appeals Officer in 2011 so that the question now fell to be considered with reference to the provisions of Section 317 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005.  This provides that an Appeals Officer may at any time revise a decision of an Appeals Officer where it appears to him or her that the decision was erroneous in the light of new evidence or new facts which have been brought to notice since the date on which it was given. 

The Appeals Officer noted that the appeal had been disallowed in 2011 without the benefit of an oral hearing.  He considered that there was new evidence in the form of additional medical evidence presented in support of the appellant’s claim in 2014, as well as her oral evidence which had not been available to the Appeals Officer in making a summary decision in 2011.  He noted, in particular, the appellant’s assertion that the impact of her child’s disability and the level of care he required had not changed between the date of her original application in 2010 and 2014 when she was awarded the allowance.  He concluded that the level of care required by and being provided to the appellant’s son subsisted in 2010 and, in the circumstances, revised the appeal decision of 2011 under Section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005, allowing the appeal from the date of the original application in 2010.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.