A TEACHER claimed in the High Court yesterday that she has been refused admission to the secondary teachers' superannuation scheme in spite of enjoying good health although suffering from diabetes.
Ms Anne Smyth (30) Templemanor Close, Limekiln Avenue, Dublin, was given leave by Mr Justice McCracken to seek judicial review of the decision of the Ministers for Education and Finance not to admit her to the superannuation scheme.
Mr Roddy Horan, counsel for Ms Smyth, said she was a permanent secondary school teacher at Colaiste Bride, Clondalkin. She suffered from insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. She was certified by her own expert as having her condition perfectly contained. She took insulin twice a day, led an ordinary life and was not distinguishable from any other member of the community.
In her affidavit, Ms Smyth said that since the diabetes was diagnosed in 1973, when she was eight, she had spent a total of two nights in hospital for the purpose of checking her blood sugar levels during the night. Her total sick leave absence from November 1991 to October 1995 amounted to 18 days and were not diabetes related.
Mr Horan said that under the superannuation scheme, an applicant had to provide evidence of health and fitness. The scheme was set up by statutory instrument in 1928 to provide pensions and gratuities for teachers.
In December 1994, Ms Smyth attended a medical examination at the behest of the State. In January 1995, the Department of Education informed her that the application was rejected. She made another application in March 1995 and enclosed a medical report by her consultant's registrar. This application was rejected later that month.
After representations were made to the ministerial Chief Medical Officer by her own consultant, her application was again refused in October 1995.
Mr Horan said his client had provided proof of health and had undergone a medical examination. The State had not given reasons for the rejection of her application. The medical report of the examination by the Chief Medical Officer in December 1994 had never been made available to her or to her specialist.
Ms Smyth was only required to provide proof of her health and physical fitness and submit to a medical examination at her own expense. In failing to give reasons for its refusal to admit her, the State had acted ultra vires (outside its powers) and unlawfully.
The decision was predetermined and derived from an inflexible policy decision in that it did not and could not derive from any analysis, assessment or determination of her health and fitness.
Ms Smyth was not given a copy of the State's medical opinion, and therefore was not given an opportunity to controvert evidence in it.