Case Studies » Carers Allowance » Carers Allowance - Case from 2015 Annual Report (ref: 2015/11)

Background: The appellant made a claim for Carer’s Allowance in respect of care being provided for her parents, both of whom were in their seventies.  Her father had been diagnosed with Ischaemic Heart Disease, Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), while her mother had a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus, Anaemia, Hypertension, High Cholesterol, COPD   and Chronic Kidney Disease.  The claim was refused on grounds that neither person was held to require full-time care and attention as provided for in the governing legislation.

Oral hearing: The appellant attended the hearing in the company of one of her parents. The Appeals Officer sought to clarify the provisions of the legislation, making reference to the circumstances in which a person may be considered to have a need for full-time care and attention.  He outlined the medical evidence which was available. 

In outlining her parents’ care needs, the appellant provided some background to her circumstances and an account of a typical day, with specific attention to her caring role.  In this she submitted:

• Her parents live close by and she would generally call into them at around 9.30 a.m.  By that time, they have usually mobilised, dressed and groomed.  They do not need regular assistance with dressing or matters of hygiene, including washing/showering. She assists her mother with showering occasionally and also does physiotherapy to relieve joint discomfort associated with Arthritis.

• The appellant attends to making the breakfast and housekeeping, which includes making beds, cleaning and washing clothes.
• Her parents are reluctant to go out and usually stay indoors, watching television or listening to the radio.  She usually accompanies her mother to collect her pension and do a little shopping. Her father takes short walks for exercise.

• The appellant prepares the dinner for 1 p.m. and all the family, including the appellant’s own family, have their dinner in her parents’ house. Her parents usually stay around the house in the afternoon. They have a light tea in the evening.
• The appellant does not usually call on her parents in the evening but is available, if needed.  Her parents retire to bed, unassisted. 

• The appellant pointed out that she monitors her mother’s bloods daily as she is unable to do it herself.  She understands the readings and notifies the relevant service when bloods are high.  He mother self-injects her insulin.
• The appellant’s brother brings both parents to their various hospital and G.P. appointments.  He also looks in daily on his parents and looks after the fire, fetching turf and so on.

Consideration: The governing legislation, Section 179 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005 prescribes that for the purposes of Carer’s Allowance a relevant person is regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where –

1. The person has such a disability that he or she requires from another person –

2. Continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions, or

3. Continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself, and

4. The nature and extent of his or her disability has been certified in the prescribed manner by a medical practitioner

   The Appeals Officer noted the medical evidence provided in respect of each of the appellant’s parents, and the fact that the family G.P. had suggested that they both required ongoing care and attention.  He noted also that no issues of concern were raised in relation to their safety.  In relation to the appellant’s father, he noted that his medical condition was considered to have a moderate effect on his mental health, balance/co-ordination, vision and hearing, a mild effect on his continence and a mild to moderate effect on his ability to undertake the activities of daily living.

   The Appeals Officer noted that the medical evidence provided in relation to the appellant’s mother indicated that her condition had a moderate effect on her mental health, balance/co-ordination and vision and a mild to moderate effect on her ability to undertake the activities of daily living.

   The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant’s evidence had indicated that her parents were able, without support, to mobilise in the morning and attend to their own grooming, including hygiene.  She had advised that her parents spend most of their time indoors, being reluctant to going out particularly because of mobility challenges associated with their medical conditions.  He noted that for the most part, the appellant does the domestic tasks, including preparing all meals, making beds, cleaning and washing clothes. He noted that the appellant attended to some of her parents’ personal needs, including assisting her mother with bathing, monitoring her blood sugar levels, and providing some physiotherapy.  After a careful assessment, he concluded that whilst the evidence established that the appellant’s parents required a level of care, it had not been established that they required full-time care and attention within the meaning of the provisions of social welfare legislation.

   Outcome: Appeal disallowed.