Refusal of domiciliary care allowance was not unreasonable or irrational

Domiciliary care allowance - appeal against judgment of HC - which refused to grant appellant reliefs relating to decision of Appeals Officer - Appeals Officer disallowed the appellant's appeal against determinations which found that appellant not entitled to domiciliary care allowance - in respect of care of appellant's teenage daughter - statutory conditions governing grant of allowance had not been met - child born 2006 - child reached early development but concerns first arose when child attended primary school - diagnosed with development co-ordination difficulties/dyspraxia - further diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder - appellant's application supported by medical reports from GP and OT - medical assessors report was child did not require substantially more care and attention than another child of her age - Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 - Chapter 8A of Part 3 of the 2005 Act - Section 186C - appeal against trial judge’s findings on each question of law - further that trial judge had erred in finding that evidence of consideration were discernible from the decision making process as a whole - further criticism that trial judge considered Medical Assessor’s Report which was not before the Appeals Officer - duty to give reasons - court concludes trial judge did not err in determining that the duty to give reasons was complied with by the Appeals Officer - whether Appeals Officer was not irrational or unreasonable - court finds Appeals officer he had regard to all of the information submitted to him - whether trial judge erred in finding that the correct statutory test was applied - section 186C of the 2005 Act - court finds trial judge did not err in dealing with statutory test - appellant unsuccessful - appeal dismissed.