You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Sickness >> Occupational Injury Benefit

Occupational Injury Benefit  - Case 3

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant’s incapacity resulted from an occupational accident and whether that accident had occurred on an unbroken journey to or from his normal place of residence to his place of work.

Background:

The appellant had been employed as a merchant seaman with an Irish company. He sustained severe injuries in a road traffic accident while the ship was berthed in a port. He claimed injury benefit under the occupational injuries benefits scheme which is payable where an insured person is unfit for work due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment or due to the contraction of a prescribed occupational disease. His claim was rejected on the grounds that his incapacity was not caused by an occupational accident and did not result from an accident which had occurred on an unbroken journey either going to or travelling from his normal place of residence to his place of work

Oral Hearing:

In line with the documentary evidence, the appellant outlined the circumstances in which the accident had occurred. He had been working from 9.00 a.m and had then gone to bed in the ship’s cabin until about midday. He left the ship to go for lunch. He was ‘off watch’ (off duty) at the time and due back to work at 5.30 p.m., although he had to be back on board by 2.30 p.m. as the ship was sailing for Dublin at 3.00 p.m. When he left the ship he was riding his motorcycle which he kept on board the ship during the week he was working. He crashed on the motorway outside the port. He had spent a number of months in hospital after the accident, both in the United Kingdom and subsequently in Dublin.

The appellant submitted that he had to get permission to leave the ship and advised that, in the event of an emergency, it was a requirement that the whereabouts of everyone on board would be known. He said that most of the crew, including himself, were trained in fire-fighting and that he was on call at all times in case of an emergency. He said that he worked week on/week off, with the ship doing four crossings per day, two each way. With so many crossings per week, he felt it was nice to get off the ship for lunch and that he did so once or twice a week.

The appellant’s wife submitted that his claim should have been dealt with under the provisions of the occupational injuries benefits scheme which refer to the employment of mariners and airmen. The Appeals Officer advised that those provisions, outlined in guidelines published by the Department of Social and Family Affairs [1], deal only with the circumstances in which the employees in question may be included under the scheme. He pointed out that once cover was provided under the scheme it applied in the same way for all employees.

[1] See http://www.welfare.ie/foi/oib_injuryb.html

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer examined the evidence in relation to the appellant’s working hours and took account of the fact that he had been off duty and on his way to lunch at the time of the accident. He noted that he was not due back to work until 5.30 p.m. , although he had to be back on board some time earlier in view of the ship’s departure. He concluded that the appellant’s submission that he was a trained fire-fighter and on call in the event of an emergency was not relevant in the context of his claim for injury benefit. He examined the question as to the appellant’s residence and concluded that his normal place of residence must be regarded as being on board the ship during the week he worked, at least while the ship was in port. On that basis, he took the ship to be both the appellant’s workplace and his normal place of residence. He concluded that, since the appellant had been outside the ship when the accident occurred, his incapacity could not have been caused by an accident on an unbroken journey either going to or travelling from his normal place of residence. He determined that the appellant’s incapacity was not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his insurable employment.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document