Case Studies » Carers Allowance » Carers Allowance - Case from 2016 Annual Report (ref: 2016/18)

2016/18 Carer’s Allowance

Oral hearing

Question at issue: Eligibility (provision of full-time care)

Background: The appellant’s claim for Carer’s Allowance was disallowed on grounds that she was not providing full-time care and attention for her husband, who was in his late 70s. He had a diagnosis of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebral vascular accident (CVA) and coronary artery disease (CAD). The claim had been referred to a Social Welfare Inspector, who interviewed the appellant. At that time, her husband was in hospital. The Inspector reported that while there was a level of personal care being provided, he considered that the care the appellant was providing was not full-time care and attention within the meaning of legislation. This had been accepted by the Deciding Officer in his determination. In her appeal, the appellant asserted that she provides care around the clock.

Oral hearing: The appellant attended the hearing alone, while the Social Welfare Inspector attended at the request of the Appeals Officer. He outlined the details of his report and stated that he was satisfied that it reflected accurately the information which had been provided by the appellant during the course of their meeting. He stated that the appellant had advised that her husband was able, for the most part, to attend to his own personal care needs, independent of her support. He reported that while it was clear that she was providing some support, it appeared that the major part of the time she spent with her husband was in situations where companionship was required rather than care.

In response, the appellant contended that her husband requires full-time care and attention and, given the circumstances, that she is his carer. She reported that her husband had experienced three stokes which had a significant impact on his independence and his ability to undertake daily activities without continual support and supervision. She made reference to a significant history of COPD and advised that he was using home oxygen at all times.

The appellant advised that her husband receives Home Help, for one hour a day, two days a week. She said that at such times he is assisted with showering and at all other times she is his only carer. She advised that he is susceptible to losing his balance and falling, that he uses crutches when getting around the house and has a wheelchair for outdoor use. She reported that his sleep can be disturbed significantly and that she is on constant alert for any difficulties arising, particularly any problems with oxygen intake or supply. The Social Welfare Inspector confirmed that the appellant’s husband had been in hospital at the time he interviewed her and conceded that it might have been more helpful if he had observed him at home.

Consideration: The Appeals Officer noted that the question of the appellant’s husband requiring full-time care and attention was not at issue and accepted, based on this fact and having regard to the medical evidence available, that full-time care and attention was required. He noted also that the appellant was the main care provider, albeit her husband had the benefit of two hours a week by way of Home Help. He made reference to the significant difficulties her husband was experiencing as a consequence of the medical conditions diagnosed and noted that the appellant was in constant attendance, to ensure his safety. He concluded that the appellant must be held to be providing full-time care within the meaning of the governing social welfare legislation.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.