You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Supplementary Welfare Allowance >> SWA

Supplementary Welfare Allowance - Case 1

Question At Issue:

Refusal of diet supplement on grounds of parental income.

Background:

The appellant applied to his local Health Board for payment of a diet supplement under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme. He made the application in respect of his son whose needs in this regard arose from the diagnosis of diabetes. His application was refused on grounds that he had means derived from full-time employment, and this decision was upheld subsequently by an Appeals Officer of the Health Board. The amount at issue was €6.35 per week.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by his wife. The Superintendent Community Welfare Officer attended at the request of the Appeals Officer.

The Superintendent Community Welfare Officer outlined the calculation used in assessing means. He indicated that, essentially, household income would need to approximate that of a social welfare payment in order for someone to qualify for the supplement. He stated that the appellant’s means exceeded the limits provided for in relation to the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme and, as such, precluded payment of a diet supplement.

The appellant submitted that diet is a crucial element in the management of diabetes. He reported on his son’s dietary requirements, and provided supporting medical evidence. He stated that a medical card had been granted solely on the basis of illness (the ordinary means test having been waived), and asserted that a diet supplement should be provided on the same basis. He argued for the payment of a diet supplement, as of right, where a child has a prescribed medical condition such as diabetes, and a medical card has been provided without reference to his parents’ means.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer considered that the case for payment of a diet supplement had been well made. She concluded, however, that the decision to refuse the appellant’s claim was correct, having regard to the legislation governing the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme and that, accordingly, the appeal must fail.

The Appeals Officer considered that the issues highlighted by this case, and the operation of current legislative provisions in this regard, should be examined. Accordingly, the Chief Appeals Officer referred the question for consideration by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document