You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Sickness >> Disablement Benefit

Disablement Benefit Case 2

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant’s claim to disablement benefit under the occupational injuries benefit scheme should be disallowed on the grounds that his accident did not arise out of and in the course of his insurable employment

Background:

The appellant was insurably employed as an amateur jockey. He attended a race meeting at which he was due to ride for his employer. Prior to his employer’s race, he accepted a ‘chance ride’ for another owner. He had a fall and was severely injured. He is now confined to a wheelchair. His employer declined to complete an accident form in respect of disablement benefit as the appellant was not riding for him when the accident occurred nor was he acting under his instruction. The claim was subsequently disallowed on the grounds that accident did not arise out of and in the course of his insurable employment.

The appellant appealed against the decision. It was decided on a summary basis and the Appeals Officer upheld the deciding officer’s decision. In arriving at the decision, account was taken of the failure of the employer to complete the relevant accident form and the Social Welfare Inspector’s report which suggested that the appellant had secured the other ride without his employer’s knowledge and in so doing was not acting within his employer’s instructions.

Following the summary decision, further papers were submitted by the employer indicating that the appellant had been engaged in an activity authorised and/or permitted for the purpose of his work. The relevant accident form was completed by the employer. Representations were also received from the appellant’s social worker who had discussed the case with the employer. During those discussions, the employer indicated that he had actively encouraged the appellant to take spare rides whenever the occasion arose.

In the light of the additional evidence submitted, the case was reopened by way of an oral hearing.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended accompanied by his mother and employer. The deciding officer and two Social Welfare Inspectors from the Department also attended.

In giving his evidence, the employer stated that the Social Welfare Inspector’s report indicating that he had declined to complete the relevant claim form for disablement benefit did not fully reflect his position. He stated that, had he been at the race meeting in question, he would have encouraged the appellant to take the chance ride offered to him as it would have added to his experience and would have been of benefit to him. He also made it clear that he had never forbidden the appellant from taking chance rides and, consequently, the appellant was not acting contrary to his instructions on this occasion. He surmised that his decision to decline to complete the disablement benefit form initially was because he considered it irrelevant given that when the accident happened the appellant was not riding on his ‘direct’ instructions. The relevant form had since been completed by him.

The social worker said that information he had obtained from the Irish Turf Club suggested that the taking of chance rides was the means by which jockeys gained experience and advanced their careers. It was essentially a natural part of a jockey’s career progression.

The deciding officer was asked for his view in the light of the evidence adduced by the employer and the social worker. He considered that there were grounds for allowing the claim but, as the case was before an Appeals Officer, he felt it was not open to him to revise his original decision.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

In considering the circumstances of this case, the Appeals Officer had before him oral evidence from the employer and the view of the Department’s deciding officer. He also had regard to a decision of the UK Appeals Commissioners which he felt was of relevance. The case concerned a farm worker who was injured while assisting a mechanic unload a tyre. While the farm worker was waiting for his employer’s machinery to be repaired, he went to assist a mechanic in unloading a tractor tyre and was injured in the process. The outcome was that it had been considered there had been no interruption of employment, that the worker’s action in assisting the mechanic was not unreasonable in the context of the employment concerned and that it was incidental to and within the scope of his employment. It was deemed, therefore, that the accident arose in the course of his employment.

The Appeals Officer considered all the evidence before him and was of the view that the practice of chance rides is common in the career of amateur jockeys and is accepted and not discouraged. Consequently, the taking of the chance ride could be regarded as coming within the scope of and incidental to the appellant’s employment. He, therefore, revised the summary decision and allowed the appeal.

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document