Disabled man denied dignity and medical funds by Ministry of Social Development, authority rules

Monday, 4 March 2019

The Social Security Appeal Authority has ruled against Ministry of Social Development in a case where face-to-face contact with a client was denied. (File photo)

A man with an unsightly skin condition, who was denied specialist medical funding and face-to-face contact with the Ministry of Social Development, has earned the department sharp criticism.

The man, who sought welfare for issues related to his condition, was trespassed from Work and Income offices and deemed not to require regular medical appointments by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staffers.

He appealed to the Social Security Appeal Authority, which instructed the ministry to accept medical evidence and deal directly with him in December, but it failed to act.

The authority has now rebuked MSD, in a decision released publicly on Friday, for withholding support and exacerbating the man's 'parlous state'.

Ministry of Social Development has been rebuked by the Social Security Appeal Authority for denying a man access to funds for specialist medical appointments.

* MSD defends using fake names when dealing with 'difficult' clients

* MSD faked names and signatures in benefit reviews

* State services commissioner should consider MSD chief's position, says lawyer**

'The ministry has adopted an intransigent strategy of not only withholding support, but electing not to provide the dignity of face-to-face communication with [the client].'

The man, whose name is suppressed, was in good health and in skilled work when he developed three unpleasant and unsightly skin conditions about 20 years ago.

The condition and its social implication caused him to lose his self-worth, and he subsequently developed a severe mental illness.

'We are concerned with a man whose life has spiraled downward in a manner that has caused stress to him due to his feelings of loss of self-worth; it has caused stress to the community due to him acting out to the extent he has been imprisoned as a result,' the authority said.

His condition 'gravely compromised' his ability to undertake MSD's process for verifying his medical condition for a disability allowance.

'We are satisfied [the client] has clear and present medical needs that flow from his disability, which involves both his physical and mental health.'

The man's mental health contributed to tense dealings with MSD staff. He was eventually trespassed from local Work and Income offices and was compelled to deal with the ministry through its Remote Client Unit.

To contact the ministry he paid more than $1000 for the purchase of a cellphone and phone bills, taking on debt.

'[The client] is not the most problematic person the ministry is required to deal with. People who have a history of violence, mental instability and other issues must be dealt with by personnel in a range of social agencies.'

The authority also dismissed evidence provided by MSD's regional disability advisor, who was unqualified to assess the man's medical needs yet decided he did not need to regularly see a medical practitioner.

'It appears to us that the evidential base on which these appeals are to be decided was utterly inadequate. The evidence from the Regional Disability Adviser was most concerning,' a prior authority decision reads.

MSD has been directed to pay costs for the man's medical costs, travel to specialist appointments, phone costs, and the maximum disability allowance of $63.22 a week.

In a statement responding to the ruling, MSD deputy chief executive Viv Rickard said the department was working with the client in accordance with the decision.

He emphasised the client's mental health was found to have compromised the man's ability to comply with the required verification process.

'We want to be able to interact directly with all of the people we're trying to help – unfortunately that's not always possible,' Rickard said.

'Some clients' situations mean we need to take safety concerns into account when deciding how best to support them.'

Lawyer Simonette Boele, of Canterbury Community Law, said MSD had been cavalier with their approach to the authority in 2017, when the case first arose.

She had a case the month prior where MSD was similarly found to have used poor and irrelevant evidence in making a decision.

'That is just poor evidence, evidence that's designed when you don't expect a challenge.'

A lack of such appeals in the past year may indicate a political push to change the ministry's approach has changed its practice, she said.

*comments on this article have been closed