Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

Decision 493 13
29/04/2013
S. Peckover
  • Supplements, transitional provisions (calculation) (Old Age Security)
  • Supplements, transitional provisions (review)

In Decision No. 1309/01, the Tribunal found that the worker was entitled to supplementary benefits under s. 147(4) of the pre-1997 Act. The worker then appealed a decision of the Board regarding the calculation of the amount of the supplement.

In Decision No. 1387/07, the Tribunal found that the amount of benefits under s. 147(4) is subject to subsections (8), (9) and (10). The Board based the supplement on the maximum payable pursuant to s. 147(8). The worker submitted that he should receive benefits based on the higher amount that would be payable under s. 147(10). The decision found that the benefits were correctly calculated by the Board.
The worker now appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer regarding calculation of the supplement at the 24-month and 60-month reviews.
The Vice-Chair applied Decision No. 941/94, and found that the intent of s. 147(4) was not to provide income replacement but to provide workers who are either unemployable or unable to benefit from VR services to the extent described in s. 147(2), with an additional amount, calculated according to subsection (9) or (10), as the case may be, and not to exceed the Old Age Security cap under subsection (8).
Subsection (13) states that it applied to a supplement given under subsection (4), with respect to the 24-month and 60-month reviews. Thus, the review goes back to subsection (4), which is subject to subsections (8), (9) and (10). On a plain reading, subsection (4) is always subject to subsection (8). Subsection (8) states that subsection (4) is subject to the Old Age Security cap. Neither subsection (4) nor subsection (8) makes a distinction between initial entitlement to the supplement and subsequent reviews.
The Board correctly determined the amount of the supplement as being subject to the Old Age Security cap in subsection (8). The appeal was dismissed.