The Court of Appeal has ruled that an assessment of need under the Disability Act 2005 may require diagnostic testing when an assessment officer considers it necessary to identify a child’s disability, its nature and extent, or the needs and services arising from it.
In a consultative case stated, the court answered a legal question referred by the Circuit Court about whether an assessment could be complete without a diagnostic assessment. It said there is no requirement for a diagnosis in every case. The assessment officer must decide, based on the evidence, whether one is needed.
The case concerned an anonymised child whose parents applied to the HSE for an assessment in February 2020. A multidisciplinary team assessed the child under the HSE’s January 2020 Standard Operating Procedure. Its report found a disability affecting social communication, sensory processing and emotional regulation, and identified a need for further diagnostic assessment. It did not provide a clinical diagnosis. The service statement later issued by the HSE did not refer to further diagnostic assessment.
The child’s parents argued that the assessment was incomplete, including because it did not address whether the child had autism. The HSE maintained that diagnosis was separate from the statutory assessment of disability and its effects. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission appeared as amicus curiae.
The Court of Appeal found that the 2020 procedure’s preliminary team assessment could not replace the statutory assessment required by section 8. In this case, the report itself identified further diagnostic assessment as necessary to determine the nature and extent of the disability, but that assessment had not been included. The court concluded that the resulting report did not comply with the Act.
The court qualified its answer: an assessment is not incomplete merely because it lacks a diagnosis. It may be complete without one if the assessment officer reasonably considers diagnostic assessment unnecessary to determine the disability’s nature and extent, the needs arising from it, and the appropriate services and timing.
The ruling addressed only the legal question referred by the Circuit Court. It expressly made no determination on the merits of the family’s substantive claims there. The court’s preliminary view was that the applicant had substantially succeeded and was entitled to costs against the HSE; it invited any further submissions on costs within 21 days.