Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Regarding levels of refusals and appeals, I have found, especially in cases involving a medical report, that in many cases the application form is grossly inadequate and the additional medical evidence that can be provided entirely insufficient to express the true extent of the applicant's disability or ailment, which leads to a high level of refusals. These people then approach us as public representatives and we are obliged to seek the information that will be adequate to present to the medical assessors for review. This process could be speeded up if the Department would introduce, following discussions with the medical profession, some type of process to streamline the delivery of accurate information from GP to the medical assessors. This would, in many cases, expedite an initial decision and ensure that neither a review nor appeal is required.

There was a useful arrangement in the past whereby departmental staff would inform an applicant or public representative when a decision was approved in principle by the medical assessor's office or, where an application was likely to be refused, staff would indicate that this was because of inadequate medical evidence. Now staff refuse point blank to give out that type of information. Where in the past people were told that there was not adequate medical evidence in respect of a particular application, there was an opportunity to go back, obtain the additional evidence and present it to the medical assessor for decision.

A whole paper process would be gone because the file would leave the medical assessor's office, go back to the local office which would write to the person who would then have to go to the general practitioner to get the additional information. That would have to be sent in and the file returned to the medical assessor's office which was delaying the whole process. Some streamlining of these processes could help to address some of the problems at a much earlier stage in the process rather than forcing people into an appeal.

The correspondence sent to members of the public needs to provide far more clarity regarding their position in respect of a review. The correspondence sent out gives the person the opportunity within 21 days to look for a review or to go for an appeal. People panic and submit an appeal to the social welfare appeals office. In many cases if it was clearly stated to them that if there were additional circumstances that were not considered in the original application or additional medical evidence that was not considered they could submit that for a review and decision they would do so. If there is no additional information to be provided then by all means let them go through the appeals process. When new evidence is brought forward it goes into the appeals system and clogs it up when really it should be a review which could expedite the application and reach a decision much earlier. This would deal with the applicant's issue, the financial hardship that sometimes arises from that and take some of the pressure off the appeals office.

See this speech in context