THE SUPREME Court has cited a lack of clarity about social welfare appeal procedures in a unanimous decision yesterday upholding a man's appeal against the manner in which his disability benefit was stopped nine years ago.
The three-judge court granted the appeal by Martin Maher (45) - he worked with CIÉ from 1978 until who sustained back and neck injuries in a work accident in 1998 - against a High Court decision rejecting his challenge to the manner in which the Department of Social Welfare refused him disability benefit from December 8th, 1999.
Ms Justice Susan Denham also directed that Mr Maher's situation should be reviewed "in a fair manner" by the chief appeals officer with the department. She also said the existence of the option of appeal to the chief appeals officer was "not easily discernible" from the material provided by the department.
Mr Maher had, after the accident on September 1998, received occupational injuries benefit from the department from September 1998. In January 1999, a medical assessor for the department found him incapable of work.
He initiated an action for damages for personal injuries against CIÉ and in April 1999 he was transferred to disability benefit by the department. He was retired by CIÉ on grounds of ill health from June 1999, and got a pension of €18.52 weekly and a gratuity payment of some €2,000.
A medical assessor who assessed him again in late 1999 on behalf of the department wrote "legal case pending" on his report and took the view he was capable of work. A deciding officer, following the medical report, ruled he was not entitled to disability benefit from December 8th, 1999.
Mr Maher said that decision was "an enormous shock" as he was unaware his eligibility for disability benefit was being reviewed. He appealed to an appeals officer on grounds he had not been granted fair procedures in how the decision was arrived at and that his pending legal case and other irrelevant matters to his disability were taken into account. The appeal was refused. Mr Maher argued the appeal was not conducted fairly, with none of the medical assessors called to give evidence about their reports.