Publication
53601 (25 October 2022)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
APPEAL HEARING
APPLICANT: [ ] Ref 53601
Held by way of Virtual Hearing on 25 October 2022
Present:
Tribunal Members
Martin G. Lawlor, Solicitor (Chair of division, Solicitor)
Patricia Sheehy Skeffington Barrister at Law
Marc Murphy Barrister at Law
and/
Anne Marie Treacy, Secretary
For the appellant
[ ] Appellant
[ ] Aunt
This matter came before the Tribunal panel by way of appeal from the single member decision dated 1 March 2021.
The Chairman opened the proceedings by outlining a number of procedural matters namely, that this was a de novo hearing, it was being conducted remotely as per direction number 2 published on the Criminal Injuries Compensation tribunal website, the hearing was in private, no note would be taken other than that of Anne Marie Tracey, Secretary to the Tribunal, only the three panel members would make a decision and the decision would be notified within four to six weeks.
The Appellant confirmed that he was consenting to the matter being dealt with by way of remote hearing.
The Chairman explained that because it was a “de novo” hearing that the Tribunal could either affirm the decision of the single member or reach an independent separate decision themselves regarding the matter which could result in an award.
It was also explained to the Appellant that he did not need to go into the facts of the attack unless he wished to do so as it was accepted that he was the victim of an assault.
The Tribunal noted that the incident took place on the [ ] and that the Application form was received within time on the [ ].
The matter opened with the Appellant giving his evidence concerning the incident in question. He outlined that he lost four front teeth in the incident. He went to [ ] Hospital. He was referred from there to the Dental Hospital. He also went to see his own Dentist Dr [ ] who did some temporary work on him but because of his age it was deemed necessary to await his development and growth before final work would take place.
The Appellant lost four front teeth in the attack. The Tribunal had the benefit of the treatment plan from [ ] Dentistry outlining that four implants were needed. This was at a cost of €8,950.
The Appellant outlined that he had actually commenced the treatment but not with [ ] Dentistry but rather with a Dentist in [ ]. He had travelled there with his Father.
[ ] said that she had submitted the receipt from [ ] in the sum of €7,300 to the Tribunal. It was noted that the paper work was not currently with the Tribunal. She undertook to obtain the paper work.
The Appellant said he was mid-way through the treatment. The Dentist still had to assess how it was progressing before moving to the final stage of putting on the crowns. He had the preliminary work done in [ ].
The Tribunal directed that the documentation comprising the receipt be furnished. The Tribunal also outlined that while it was not directing the Appellant as to how present his case that it would be helpful from the Tribunal’s point of view and his case if there was an explanation as to what work required to be done, had been done to date, required in the future and that this should amount to the sum claimed of €7,300.
The Chair thanked Mr [ ] for his submissions and evidence. In light of the fact that documentation was awaited the Tribunal agreed to withhold issuing its final decision until such time as that arrived. Subsequently an email was submitted from Dr [ ] on the [ ] confirming that the sum of €7,300 had been paid in [ ].
The Tribunal reconvened on the [ ]. Having considered the evidence submitted agreed to accept the email as an original receipt and have awarded the sum of €7,300.
The total award is the sum of €7,300.