Case Studies » Domiciliary Care Allowance » Domiciliary Care Allowance - Case from 2016 Annual Report (ref: 2016/05)

2016/05 Domiciliary Care Allowance

Oral hearing

Question at issue: Whether the eligibility criteria are met

Background: The appellant made a claim for Domiciliary Care Allowance in respect of her daughter, who was aged 15 years. The stated diagnosis was Grade III Urinary Reflux and the medical report indicated that this was expected to continue indefinitely. In completing the ability/disability profile, the G.P. assessed the degree to which her disability affected the child’s mental health and behaviour as mild and continence as moderate; all other categories were assessed as normal.

In completing the claim form, the appellant stated that her daughter requires assistance in and out of bed; has problems with balance/co-ordination; has to be careful of her diet; requires access to the bathroom during class; must get up during the night to go to the bathroom; is anxious about incontinence and finds difficulty in participating in physical education, going on long walks or staying over with friends. In terms of additional needs, she referred to the preparation and administration of medication. She enclosed a letter from the Consultant Urological Surgeon her daughter attends.

Oral hearing: The appellant reported that her daughter was getting on well at school. She said that she can cope independently with the normal activities of daily living and does not exhibit any behavioural problems. She said that the main issue is her lack of bladder control. She advised that her daughter attends a consultant three times per year and that her kidney function is being monitored. She was unaware if surgical intervention would be required. She outlined the difficulties her daughter experiences, in that she can urinate unconsciously both when awake and asleep. She is on a fluid intake regime and her teachers have been alerted that when she requests permission to go to the bathroom, she needs to be excused immediately.

The appellant reported that her daughter’s diagnosis has affected her social life, that she does not go out much with her friends because of it, and that she never hosts or goes on ‘sleepovers’. She said that the condition causes her great distress. She referred to the issues associated with bed-wetting, including the cost of replacing mattresses and bed linen.

Consideration: The Appeals Officer noted that the qualifying criteria for Domiciliary Care Allowance, as outlined in social welfare legislation, specify that a child must have:

• a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age, and that

• the level of that disability is such that the child is likely to require full-time care and attention for at least 12 consecutive months.

He concluded that although the appellant’s daughter suffers from a chronic kidney condition, she could not be deemed to require continual or continuous care and attention on a full-time basis, in line with the provisions of the governing legislation. He noted in particular that, apart from her bladder problems, the child had been described as being normal in all other respects; she does not suffer from any intellectual, behavioural or physical disability and is independent in the usual activities of daily living.

Outcome: Appeal disallowed.