Foilsiú
51196 (10 October 2022)
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 application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of a Single Member
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: 51196
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The application is refused under Article 9 (previously article 10), Article 10 (previously Article 11), and Article 20 (previously 21) of the Scheme.
1. [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. The Applicant [ ] submitted an application, dated [ ] in respect of an incident which happened on the [ ] at [ ]. The application form was received by the Tribunal on the [ ] some thirteen and a half months following the date of the incident.
3. The incident in question occurred at around approximately [ ], at the [ ], entrance of the [ ]. As the Applicant was leaving the [ ], he spoke with his attacker. A subsequent altercation occurred as a result of which the Applicant was boxed into the face and he fell to the ground face first. The attacker was prosecuted and convicted under Section 3 of assault causing harm at [ ] District Court on the [ ]. The Applicant received [ ] compensation.
4. The medical report discloses that the Applicant suffered trauma to his face, a black eye and injury to the left eye cheek area soft tissue injury to his upper lip, the teeth of his upper left 1 and right 1 were palatally displaced and in traumatic . The upper left and right 1 were fractured on mesial incisal edge. The upper left 2 was fractured below gum level. Treatment included the replacement of the upper left 2 in 6 to 8 years by an implant and root canal treatments carried out on the upper left 1 and upper right 1 with an average life span of 8 to12 years. It was outlined that the Applicant will need continuous extensive dental treatment for the rest of his life, every 10 to 15 years.
5. The expenses to the [ ] were €2,100 and anticipated expenses for the following 6 months were €3,000. It was estimated that implant replacements would cost €3,500 each and would have to take place on two teeth every 8 to 12 years.
6. The Applicant’s Solicitors [ ] & Company were written to on the [ ] by the Secretariat. That letter outlined that all expenses claim must be supported with documentary evidence. Enquiries were made as to whether the course of the dental treatment had been completed and to furnish all receipts when to hand. In addition an enquiry was raised if there was a claim in respect of loss of earnings. While a response was received in respect of the estimate for work to date and into the future no actual receipts were furnished.
7. Nothing further was heard from the Applicant’s Solicitors. The Secretariat wrote to them again on the [ ] asking to know if their client still wished to pursue this matter. The Secretariat requested documentation including original receipts and vouching documentation in regard to the out of pocket expenses. No reply was received to that correspondence. A further letter was written on the [ ] to [ ] Company Solicitors. In that letter they were informed that if no response was received by the [ ] the file would be sent to a member for decision. No response was received and the letter was returned by An Post.
8. The Secretariat then wrote to [ ], on the [ ] and again he was advised that if he intended to pursue the application a reply would need to be forwarded. If no reply was received by the [ ] the file would be sent to a Tribunal member for decision.
9. No response has been received from that.
10. Two issues arise in connection with this matter:
Article 9 of the scheme (previously Article v10) provides “no compensation will be payable unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the injury is such that compensation of not less than €63.50 should be awarded”. In fact this amount has been increased to €500 under the new scheme.
11. In addition Article 10 (previously Article 11) it provides “no compensation will be payable to an applicant who has not in the opinion of the Tribunal given the Tribunal all reasonable assistance in relation to any medical report that it may require and otherwise”.
12. Article 20 of the scheme (previously Article 21) it provides “ applications should be made as soon as possible but accepted circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury."
13. The Applicant’s dentist in the medical report has stated that expenses so far amounted to €2,100. However, no receipt has been furnished in respect of that. It is not obvious therefore as to whether the Applicant has paid those expenses or not. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal cannot accept that those expenses have been paid and that therefore the Applicant has incurred damages in excess of €63.50.
14. The Tribunal accordingly dismisses the Application under Article 9 (previously article 10).
15. In addition the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant’s Solicitors and to the Applicant directly. It was specifically pointed out that original receipts were required. No response has been received to that and accordingly cooperation has not been forthcoming and the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities accepts that this cooperation is not forthcoming for an unstated reason and accordingly dismisses the application under Article 10 (previously Article 11).
16. Finally the application was submitted some thirteen and a half months after the date of the incident. The Applicant has not submitted any circumstances to the Tribunal to justify extraordinary treatment. Article 20 (previously 21) of the scheme is quite prescriptive that applications may not be entertained outside of the three month time limit and accordingly the application is dismissed under Article 20 (previously 21).
Martin G Lawlor
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
10 October 2022