You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> Domiciliary Care Allowance
Question At Issue:
whether the appellant is entitled to continue to receive Domiciliary Care Allowance in light of a decision to terminate payment in respect of two of her children with effect from a date in 2010. (This is a second appeal and refers to the appellant’s daughter.)
Background:
The appellant had been in receipt a
Domiciliary Care Allowance in respect of four of
her children, all of whom have a diagnosis of
Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) with complications. Following review,
it was determined that two of those children no
longer needed care at the level envisaged by the
scheme and, with effect from a date in 2010, the
payment was terminated. The appeal at issue was
made in respect of the appellant’s daughter, K,
aged 14 years. A Medical Assessor for the
Department of Social Protection had examined
the medical evidence and found that her
condition did not indicate the need for substantial
extra continuous care. This opinion was
confirmed subsequently by a second Medical
Assessor. K has a diagnosis of ADHD and a
learning disability; she also suffers from
scoliosis. She is under the care of a consultant in
Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children.
In the medical report which forms part of the
Domiciliary Care Allowance claim form, the
family doctor assessed the degree to which her
condition had affected K’s ability across a range
of categories, as follows:
• Mental health, learning/intelligence –
affected to a moderate degree.
• Balance/co-ordination, lifting/carrying,
bending/kneeling/squatting – affected to a
mild degree.
Oral hearing:
The appellant was unaccompanied
at the hearing. In her appeal submission, she had
stated that her daughter has a learning disability
with a mental age of 10 years and that she also
has ADHD, as well as mild congenital scoliosis.
At oral hearing, she said that K suffers from
chronic anxiety and oversensitivity and she
outlined the impact this has had on her life,
including the fact that she sleep walks regularly.
She reported also that K had suffered severe
scalding as a baby which left her with extensive
scarring and may have contributed to her feelings
of anxiety. K also suffers from chronic asthma.
The appellant advised that K attends secondary
school, and goes there by school bus. She said
that although she has a Special Needs Assistant
(SNA) and a resource teacher, she is not doing
well at school. She has been assessed with a
reading and mathematical age of 8-10 years; she
is unable to tell the time and does not understand
money. The appellant said that she provides an
hour of physiotherapy for her daily in line with
the medical advice she has been given. She
agreed that K had more medical needs than her
son, G, but argued that she was constantly
bringing one or other of them to medical
appointments.
Consideration of the Appeals Officer:
The
Appeals Officer, having heard the evidence
provided by the appellant, concluded that the
level of care being provided for K could be
regarded as substantially in excess of that
normally required of a child of her age without
the various medical complications in addition to
the ADHD diagnosed.
Outcome:
Appeal allowed.
End of Document
