Foilsiú
52835 (15 November 2023)
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an appeal under paragraph 24 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of an Appeal Panel in private
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 52835
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Heard on: [ ]
Location: Remote hearing
Appeal Panel: Georgina Robinson (Chair); Damien Sheridan BL and Roderick Maguire BL
Persons present and capacity: [ ] was present and represented himself
Outcome: No award
I. On the [ ] the Appeal Panel ('the Panel') convened, in private, to consider an appeal brought by [ ] ('the appellant') under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted ('the Scheme').
2. The Panel had before it an appeal hearing bundle numbering pages 1-26 and two furthers booklet of additional documents also submitted to the tribunal consisting of six and three additional pages respectively. Following the conclusion of the appeal hearing the panel received a screen shot of a text message conversation with a doctor based in [ ] and photographs of injury. The text messages referred to appear to concern an apparent costing of Rhinoplasty treatment.
3. By a notice of appeal, dated [ ], the appellant appealed against the decision of a Single Member who, by a decision dated [ ] reasoned that the applicant's claim not been established. No vouched out of pocket expenses had been submitted and the Applicant had not established that his injuries were the result of a crime of violence. Therefore, the Tribunal made no award in the applicant's case.
4. The appeal was conducted remotely in accordance with Instruction Number 2 issued by the Tribunal under paragraph 19 of the Scheme.
5. As a direct result of this assault upon his person the applicant gave oral evidence stating that he suffered injuries to his nose cheek temple and ear on the [ ] hand side of his body. The applicant stated that he attended for medical treatment on [ ] at the [ ] Hospital.
6. The applicant did not require inpatient treatment however he stated that he continues to suffer mentally as a result of the assault. He stated that he consulted further with his GP Dr. [ ].
7. No medical evidence has been adduced by the Applicant either at appeal or at first instance save for three pages of medical notes which recorded his attendance at the A and E Department of the [ ] Hospital on the [ ].
8. The Applicant confirmed to the appeal panel that he was not working at the date of the assault and further confirmed that he held a medical card. The Applicant also stated that he had a history of [ ].
9. It was also noted that the applicant had since the date of injury sought to obtain a rhinoplasty and the applicant stated that he could not secure this treatment in Ireland by way of his medical card. He stated that his only option was to seek to attend for private treatment in [ ] and he agreed to forward what he described as an estimate from the [ ] medical facility. As noted above what the Applicant later sent the tribunal was a screenshot of a text message conversation with a Dr. [ ].
10. Under examination the applicant could not provide a reason as to why if the said treatment was medically required he would not be placed an a waiting list at the very least for same via the Irish medical system.
11. Paragraph 26 of the Scheme is of relevance to this applicant and it is noted that it is for the applicant to satisfy this Tribunal that on the balance of probabilities he is entitled to the compensation sought. Further as should be apparent the applicant is not entitled to recover for a loss which was not in fact incurred. As outlined the applicant was not in employment at the date of injury and was in fact at that time in receipt of illness benefit.
12. The Rhinoplasty in respect of which the Applicant states he can only obtain privately is not set out as a requirement by any medical expert and further no explanation has been provided as to why if medically required the said operation cannot be administered by the HSE noting the Applicant is a medical card holder.
13. The applicant has not established that he has suffered any financial loss as a result of the incident described.
14. The Panel makes no award in this case.
Georgina Robinson
For and on behalf of the Appeal Panel
15 November 2023