22831 (8 January 2024)

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted

Decision of a Single Member

Name of applicant: [ ]

Application number: 22831

Date of incident: [ ]

Date of application: [ ]

Decision outcome: The applicant is awarded the sum of €4,716.71 under the Scheme.

1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).

2. In his application for compensation under the Scheme, received by the Tribunal Secretariat on [ ] the applicant stated that he had suffered injuries at [ ] when he was subject of an unprovoked attack by [ ] strangers who knocked him unconscious and stole his wallet. He sustained a bilateral mandible fracture and damage to his face and teeth. The applicant’s claim is for losses associated with that injury, which included the impact on his ability to continue his studies [ ] and thereafter to work as a [ ].

3. The applicant submitted his application within three months of the incident in question on the appropriate form. The incident was reported to the gardai on the night it occurred. This fulfils the administrative steps of paragraphs 20 and 22 of the Scheme. A garda report on file indicates that after an investigation, [ ] people were convicted of the assault on the applicant, but neither paid compensation to him.

4. From the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained personal injury which is directly attributable to that crime of violence. Accordingly, I admit the application for consideration under the Scheme.

5. The Tribunal acknowledges and sympathises with the applicant for having had to endure the distress and pain caused to him by being criminally assaulted. As a victim of a crime of violence the applicant is entitled to compensation for losses associated with the injuries he sustained. This might cover the cost of treatment or loss of earnings. However the Scheme does not allow the Tribunal to make any award for general pain and suffering caused by the injury, as it is expressly prevented from making such awards under Para 6(e) of the Scheme. Further, the Scheme does not provide for the cost of legal representation: Para 26.

6. As set out above, the applicant stated in his application form that as a result of the incident he sustained a bilateral mandible fracture and damage to his face and teeth. A medical report of a maxillofacial consultant, [ ], dated [ ] is on file. This sets out that following his assault the applicant was admitted to the Regional Hospital in [ ] and underwent open reduction (bone plating) of the bi-lateral mandible fractures and an impacted wisdom tooth. He said that he had a satisfactory post-operative course but, without explaining how and to what extent, that the injury caused disruption to the applicant’s studies during [ ]. [ ] went on to state that the applicant returned in [ ] to remove the bone plate and that he had a satisfactory recovery from the procedure. He recorded that the applicant was regularly followed up as an out-patient and had made a full recovery from his injuries in [ ]. He said that the applicant was receiving orthodontic treatment.

7. [ ] supplemented this report by letter of [ ]. He stated that the subjective sensory deficit experienced by the applicant in the lower lip was a consequence of the original mandible fracture for which a neurosurgical consultation would not be indicated. He said that the bone plate is not usually removed unless it is symptomatic, which was not envisaged at this stage post-operatively.

8. [ ] a consultant ENT, head and neck surgeon provided a medico-legal report to the applicant dated [ ]. This indicated that the applicant had been studying for 12 weeks at the time of the assault and had to defer his studies for a year. He noted the mandible fracture and the infection of a plate which required removal. He reported that the applicant complained of hearing loss since the accident. On assessment [ ] reported normal audiogram hearing on the left but a slight high frequency loss on the left. [ ] concluded that this was slight and that it “should not affect him in his career as a [ ]” though an audiogram from another medic was suggested for medico-legal purposes.

9. A report of a vocational rehabilitation consultant, [ ], dated [ ] was submitted. This indicates that the applicant had completed his [ ] and continued with an [ ]. While the vocational rehabilitation consultant reported that the applicant had some buzzing in his ears and temporary ‘turned down’ patches in his hearing, he said that the applicant himself was of the view that his hearing loss had not affected his life as a [ ] or his social life. The assessor found that, absent of any further hearing loss, there was no impact on the applicant’s career as a consequence of the injuries he had suffered.

10. As such, it appears that the applicant suffered an assault which required orthodontic treatment in the immediate aftermath, and in particular prevented him from engaging in his studies for twelve weeks, and which impacted his hearing more generally. However the hearing loss did not impact on his ability to work. The majority of the applicant’s treatment occurred in [ ]. No report links any further orthodontic or dental work to the period [ ] onwards.

11. When the application was submitted the applicant’s treatment was ongoing. Solicitors for the applicant wrote at various junctures (including [ ]) to state that the matter was continuing and that vouchers would be furnished shortly. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant’s solicitor stating that that time they only had vouchers on file in relation to the monies paid by the applicant’s health insurer [ ], and a receipt for spectacles in the sum of £210 (or €266.64). The cost of the replacement spectacles is directly linked to the incident and is recoverable.

12. A letter in like terms was written on [ ] in which it was requested that any receipts further than that covered by the [ ] be furnished. This letter also requested that the applicant furnish documentary evidence of any loss of earnings, and specifically stated that where future loss of earnings was claimed that should be supported by medical evidence or opinion as to the applicant’s ability to perform any kind of work, and actuarial evidence to take into account potential earnings.

13. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat noted that its correspondence of [ ] had not been replied to, and alerted the applicant to the impact on the Tribunal to be able to verify old claims and the potential operation of Paragraph 11 of the Scheme, which states that no compensation is payable where an applicant has not given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance in respect of medical reports or otherwise.

14. On [ ] the applicant’s solicitor replied. They stated that the applicant had been referred to a maxillofacial specialist for further treatment which would require hospitalisation. It appears that no report of such further work is on file. This letter stated that the applicant had attended a rehabilitation consultant ([ ]) from whom a report was due (an invoice was furnished in the sum of €625 for an assessment and a report). It further furnished a letter from the Department of Social Welfare which the solicitors asserted confirmed a considerable loss of earnings “which will be reported on by the forensic accountants as soon as the report from [ ] is to hand”. No such report was in fact furnished, presumably because [ ] did not assess the injuries sustained to have had any impact on the applicant’s career.

15. This letter also referred to receipts from a [ ] in the sum of €50 and another of [ ] for the same amount dated [ ]. As noted above, this falls outside the period of treatment as evidenced by the relevant medical reports.

16. Correspondence was received from the applicant’s solicitor on [ ] setting out an ‘up to date list of outlays claimed’. This states that an actuary’s report will be furnished when to hand.

17. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant’s solicitor referring to the correspondence of [ ] and noted that there was a claim for loss of job opportunity, but “no medical evidence to indicate that the injuries your client sustained were of such a very serious nature that would have prevented him from seeking employment”. It noted that the applicant was [ ] years’ old at the time of the incident so a medical report would be required to support any claim that he was unable to participate in any form of employment. This letter also asks, if the applicant had was unemployed, if he had medical card that would cover his prescription and GP costs.

18. On [ ] the applicant’s solicitor reiterated the claim for job opportunity loss and hoped to revert as soon as possible, when the applicant had discussed the matter with his consultant and actuary. It noted that medical reports had been sent at an earlier date.

19. An update was sent by the applicant’s solicitor on [ ] stating that he was awaiting an audiologist’s report which his actuary required in making his report.

20. On [ ] the Tribunal Secretariat wrote to the applicant’s solicitor asking if the applicant still sought to pursue the matter. It copied ‘the most recent correspondence’ though does not state of which dates. On [ ] the applicant’s solicitor wrote ‘enclosing receipts’ and stating that he wished to proceed with his application. Further receipts were sent on [ ].

21. In [ ] further documents were submitted to the Tribunal. Some of these duplicate the documents already furnished. The below sets out the vouching documents from all submissions as received, and assesses the degree to which they are capable of grounding an award in this case.

[ ]

Miscellaneous special damages

22. A schedule of losses was appended to a latter from the applicant’s solicitor on [ ] Certain of those expenses are not vouched and are not allowed. Where the expenses are vouched, and pertain to treatment for injuries, they are set out in the above table. However the Tribunal does not make awards of damages for damage to clothing, and as such this is not subject of an award of damages. Further, the Tribunal does not make awards for legal fees or representation (see paragraph 26 of the Scheme).

23. The applicant was a student at the time of the incident. He made a claim for loss of earnings based on loss of opportunity. While there is evidence of the applicant having been on social welfare payments, no evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal which indicates that he could not work due to the injuries sustained. No compensation is awarded under this heading.

24. A receipt for rent in sterling for [ ] between [ ] and [ ] is supplied. It is in the sum of £975 and is dated [ ]. It is stated that this is the ‘final rent payment’.

25. There are flight stubs showing that the applicant travelled from [ ] to [ ] on [ ] and then back again on [ ]. It appears that this was in order that the applicant could avail of medical treatment. This was itemised as coming in at €158, and is an allowable expense.

26. In respect of the rent claim, it appears that in [ ] the applicant was still living in his rental accommodation in [ ], or at least would have been able to, but that he opted to travel back from there for treatment. It is noted that a food blender was purchased for use in [ ]. It appears therefore that he could live in [ ] and care for himself there. As such the claim for rent is not allowed, but the cost of the travel back to [ ] for necessary treatment is.

27. In this context, the further claim for travel from [ ] to [ ] is not allowed as there was no given reason why the applicant was not able to remain in his place of residence in [ ] to recover from his injuries, and indeed equipment was purchased for him to do just that.

28. In respect of the claim for fees, there is no indication that the college fees claimed were not transferable to another year or course. The claim for lost gym fees is not explained nor deemed likely to be a cost associated with the injuries sustained. These claims are not allowed.

29. The cost of the handblender, in the sum of €17.95 is allowed.

30. The Tribunal awards the sum of €4,716.71 in compensation for the criminally inflicted injuries sustained by the applicant on [ ].

Tricia Sheehy Skeffington

Member, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

8 January 2024