You are here: Home >> Case Studies >>Family>> Carers Allowance

Carers Allowance Case 7

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant’s claim for carer’s allowance should be disallowed on the grounds that she was not providing full-time care and attention to the care recipient

Background:

The appellant applied for carers’ allowance in respect of her father who was medically certified as being in need of full-time care. She lived some five minutes from her father’s home. The report from the social welfare inspector indicated that the appellant spent one and a half to two hours each morning and some time in the evening with her father and that she also held a part-time job for 2 days per week, working a total of 15 hours. Her claim was disallowed on the grounds that she was not providing full-time care for her father. The appellant appealed against the decision and submitted written evidence in support of her appeal.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended alone and the social welfare inspector was also present at the request of the Appeals Officer.

The social welfare inspector recalled her investigation of the claim which showed that there was no doubt that the appellant’s father was in need of full-time care. He suffered from a number of medical problems including kidney failure for which he required dialysis three times a week. The appellant did all his cooking and washing, spent between 1.5 and 2 hours with him each morning and also visited him for a short time in the evening. When he finished dialysis in the hospital, he often returned to her house if he required care immediately after his treatment.

The appellant did not disagree with the inspector’s assessment but felt it did not reflect fully the extent of the care she provided to her father. She recounted his difficult health situation over a number of years and the fact that he stayed with her in her home for 3 to 4 months following his discharge from hospital. She stated that he had a bedroom in her house and stayed over about three nights per week. In her view, he divided his time between her home and his own but not according to any set pattern. He was picked up at 5.00 a.m. by taxi when attending hospital for dialysis and would return to either house when finished at the hospital. In either case, she was available to give him his breakfast and his medication. When he was in his own house, she did some cleaning. She normally left around mid-morning but returned to prepare his lunch. His meals were very important as he was on a restricted diet on account of his medical problems. She regularly prepared his main meal in her own home and brought it to his house. She indicated that her husband had arranged his own work schedule so as to be free to care for her father when she herself was at work. She stated that her father was able to dress himself in the mornings and could also prepare a light breakfast for himself when required. Her father did not have the services of a home help nor did he attend a day care centre.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

In considering the evidence before him on file and adduced in the course of the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer concluded that the appellant’s father had a range of medical problems and that he relied on his daughter and her husband to help him cope with daily living. It appeared to him that while the father stayed in the appellant’s house on a regular basis there seemed to be no particular routine in place and he divided his time between the two houses on an ad hoc basis. He noted that the arrangement whereby the father stayed with the appellant three nights per week appeared to have been put in place to facilitate his early morning dialysis treatment rather than meeting his personal care. The appellant assisted him in terms of his meals, his washing, cleaning of his house and supervising his medication. In addition, her husband was available to assist during the two days per week she worked.

The Appeals Officer noted that the relevant legislation governing receipt of carer’s allowance defined full- time care as requiring continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to the care recipient. The Appeals Officer considered that the care provided by the appellant was not of such a full-time nature as to meet that definition. He felt that a significant amount of the activity performed by the appellant could be said to be more of a housekeeping nature as opposed to the provision of care as envisaged by the legislation.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document