Person of trust ordered ‘reconsideration’ of failed disability applications
A person of trust at the Social Welfare Ministry used to order a reconsideration of failed applications for severe disability benefits even though normal procedure did not allow a right of appeal, a lawyer said yesterday.
Lawyer Jason Azzopardi made the claim as he cross-examined Grazio Barbara, the ministry’s director general.
Barbara, looking visibly uncomfortable, admitted when asked directly by the presiding magistrate that there had been reconsiderations, but said this was not a matter within his remit.
Asked by Azzopardi whether he knew a Mark Calleja known as ‘Gulija,’ who ordered such reconsideration, the witness said that he didn’t.
Azzopardi said Calleja would get a screenshot photo of people who failed the medical board the day before and would order a reconsideration.
Barbara insisted he did not know. Barbara was testifying during a marathon session at the compilation of evidence against former Labour MP and medical doctor Silvio Grixti who, along with four other co-accused, is facing charges for alleged involvement in a large-scale disability benefit racket.
Grixti is alleged to have played a central role by providing applicants with false medical certificates which secured them the severe disability allowance after they appeared before a medical board.
Roger Agius, Emmanuel Spagnol, Dustin Caruana and Luke Saliba allegedly acted as agents or go-betweens, raking in payments from the successful beneficiaries.
The atmosphere during yesterday’s hearing became rather animated when Barbara faced cross-examination by the defence.
He explained that applications for the SDA (severe disability allowance) were received by three administrative officers at the department who followed them up by scheduling a hearing before the medical board.
Two or three doctors, chosen from a pool of 21 medical professionals, would be contacted for availability.
Doctors were selected by the contracting officers according to their availability, explained Barbara.
The department would then notify each applicant to appear before the board and to produce any medical certificates, medical prescriptions, and other evidence to prove their alleged disability.
But the assessment of each applicant was left to the doctors’ discretion.
“They are to follow the social security law,” said Barbara when asked about this assessment by Magistrate Rachel Montebello.
“But were they told what to do or what to look out for?” the magistrate asked.
“As far as I know, it’s for them to see what is necessary,” the official replied.
Pre-2016, board hearings were held at Mater Dei Outpatients Department, but they were then relocated to Ċentru Ħidma Soċjali at Santa Venera.
One of the public officers from the medical section acted as secretary at board hearings. When the applicant was unable to attend because of his disability, the board would conduct a home or hospital visit to assess the application, Barbara said.
However, he was unable to explain how doctors were selected to join the pool.
“From OPM!” came one suggestion from the dock. “I cannot reply,” said the director-general.
“Keep calm. You seem to be blushing,” defence lawyer Franco Debono remarked, apparently sensing the witness’s discomfort.
“The list comes from the permanent secretary at the ministry. But I don’t know,” insisted the witness.
“If you don’t know how the doctors are chosen, then who does?” pressed on Debono.
Defence lawyer Michael Sciriha then asked whether board decisions were final.
Barbara replied in the affirmative.
“So how do you explain that after 2017, some decisions by the medical board were afforded reconsideration?” Azzopardi asked. “Do you know about this?” insisted the lawyer.
“This is not my remit,” replied Barbara.
“But were there [any reconsiderations]?”asked Magistrate Montebello.
“Yes,” said the witness. Azzopardi suggested that the court ought to warn the witness about the risk of self-incrimination. The magistrate duly explained the right not to answer potentially self-incriminating questions.
Then the questioning resumed.
“Who was the public officer who sought those reconsiderations? You know who it is,” said Azzopardi.
“No, no I don’t,” said the director-general. “As far as I know, when there is a refusal, a new application must be filed,” he added, drawing some “tuttutting”
fromnthde accused.
“Careful! …let me try to spare you proceedings elsewhere,” pressed on Azzopardi.
“Do you know of a certain Mark Calleja known as ‘Gulija’ who ordered such reconsiderations?”
“No, I don’t,” the witness replied.
“Mr Barbara! Let’s not play around. This Calleja would get a screenshot of a person’s photo – that person would have failed the medical board the day before. He would order a reconsideration,” said Azzopardi.
“Who is this person?” intervened the magistrate.
Calleja was a person of trust at minister Michael Falzon’s ministry, explained the lawyer. “And he’s still there. That’s the cover up,” said Azzopardi somewhat heatedly as the hearing became more animated.
“And what about applications during COVID-19?” pressed on Azzopardi.
The director explained that during the pandemic the department granted an extension to pending applications.
“So how do you explain that some applicants simply got a phone call instead of appearing before the board?” went on Azzopardi.
“Hello! This is from the department. Are you Jason Azzopardi?
Yes. What is wrong with you? Epilepsy. Ok. You’ve passed [the board],” said the lawyer, acting out one such call and claiming that he personally knew that this had happened.
“Naħseb f’dak is-sens,”(I think it went along those lines), admitted the witness, explaining that new applications during COVID-19 were handled over the phone by someone from the income support directorate.
Those who were already getting the benefits were granted an extension during the pandemic, said Barbara, venturing that explanation when sternly rapped by the magistrate for not having drawn that distinction when questioned earlier on.
If you don’t know how the doctors are chosen, then who does?