J.O.S.S v Health Service Executive (Approved)

�������������� �The Executive shall process applications for assessment in order of the date on which they are received by the Executive.� Where two or more applications are received on the same date then they shall be processed in alphabetical order of the surname of the applicant.�

3.������ The appellant is now 10 years old and lives in an area of Cork, which together with Kerry, makes up the CHO4 region.� His mother applied on his behalf for an assessment of needs in April 2016 when he was just under 5 years old.� Over two and a half years later he was still waiting to be assessed.� In the CHO4 region waiting times for assessments are considerably longer than other CHO regions.

4.������ The respondent�s current practice and indeed, the practice it adopted in respect of the appellant, is that while the applications for an assessment of needs are processed chronologically, on a national basis, the assessments are then processed and carried out in chronological order, within the CHO in which an applicant resides, rather than being carried out chronologically on a national basis. �The result of this is that an applicant who has applied months or even a year in advance of another applicant in a different CHO may be called for assessment long after the later applicant.�

5.������ According to s. 9(5) of the Disability Act, assessments of need must be commenced within 3 months of the date of receipt of the application and completed without undue delay.� According to regulation 10 they must be completed within 6 months.� The respondent�s figures show that 91% of assessments are not completed within 6 months and the appellant submits that many assessments take 3 years to complete.

7.������ Although the appellant had been assessed subsequent to the order of mandamus made on consent, he sought declarations as to the legality of the respondent�s approach to assessments.� His case was put forward, with the agreement of the respondent, as one of three test cases on this issue which were heard together.� The High Court refused the reliefs sought. At this appeal stage, only this appellant and C.M. pursued their appeals.� The appeals in these two cases were heard together.