The High Court has quashed an HSE Disability Complaints Officer’s decision rejecting a family’s complaint about services for a child with a disability, finding that the complaint had not been investigated as required by law.
Ms Justice Bolger ordered the HSE complaints officer to reconsider the complaint made on 22 December 2021. She did not decide whether the services listed in the child’s service statement had been provided in full. That question is for the complaints officer to investigate.
The complaint concerned a service statement issued in April 2021, which listed occupational therapy, psychology, speech and language therapy, and social work. The family said the HSE had failed to provide or fully provide those services.
The officer’s decision of 22 February 2022 instead focused on an earlier service statement and a meeting held in July 2019, before the child’s assessment report and first service statement were finalised. The officer concluded that the HSE had complied with statutory timeframes and did not uphold the complaint. Justice Bolger found that this did not address whether the services in the April 2021 statement had been provided.
The HSE argued that a further service statement issued in January 2022 made the judicial review moot or futile, and that the family had not been candid in failing to mention it when seeking leave to bring the case. The judge rejected those arguments. She found the later statement did not supersede the earlier one or remove the live dispute, and concluded the omission did not justify refusing relief.
The judge also rejected the HSE’s argument that the family should have appealed the complaints officer’s decision instead of seeking judicial review. She said the complaint had not received the investigation to which the family was entitled, and that it should be remitted for lawful consideration.
The complaints officer may take account of events since the complaint, including reviews of the service statement and any services provided. The court made no finding on whether the family’s allegation of non-provision was correct. It gave an indicative view that the successful applicants were entitled to their costs and listed the matter for further submissions on costs and final orders on 24 October 2023.