Kostelka: THERAPEUTIC HORSEBACK RIDING
For 21 years therapeutic horseback riding and vaulting was accepted as a form of therapy and financially supported in some Styrian districts for the benefit of handicapped children or children stunted in their development. In May 2009 the new bylaw for cost allowances – passed by the Styrian Land government – entered into force. As a consequence, the financial allowances for 350 children and adolescents were abolished. Now, the costs have to be fully covered by their parents. Those, who are unable to raise approximately 100 Euros per week, have to unsubscribe their children despite medical prescription and first healing success. A citizens’ initiative of affected parents has collected 2000 signatures with the purpose that this form of therapy is financially granted when medically prescript. In desperation, they called on Ombudsman Dr. Peter Kostelka.
The parents report in the TV article that the children suffering from mental or physical handicaps, learning disabilities, autism, speech impediments or other problems in the emotional or social sphere got more independent and self-confident due to the therapeutic horseback riding. Their motor skills, spatial perception and sense of balance also improved verifiably.
Even when horseback riding therapists only accept children sent by paediatricians, medical specialists, neurologists or psychiatrists because of a special educational need, it is not recognized as a form of therapy by the Highest “Sanitätsrat”. According to the representative of the welfare department of the Styrian Land government this is the reason why allowances are no longer given. In the time before the entry into force a the new bylaw 5 out of 17 district commissions had already denied the allowances, while the others considered the Styrian Law for Handicapped as a basis to give allowances.
Ombudsman Dr. Peter Kostelka reports that this form of therapy is sustained in Tyrol, Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Burgenland and that positive experts reports concerning its therapeutic quality from university hospitals do exist. Even the existing bylaw provides the possibility for allowances, if the Land government agrees. To bring it to the point: Either the current approach to the issue is lawful and the approach of the last 21 years unlawful or vice versa. According to the Austrian Ombudsman Board, it is the supervisory authority which has to examine the different points of view and approaches followed by the different commissions. The parents’ initiative has to right that their matter is treated in a careful way. This seems to be even more important because parents are reporting that the health situation of handicapped children worsens, if there are denied the help and support to exploit their full potential.
Every month Mr. K. gets a postal notice about the transfer of his accident annuity. In October 2009 he waited for this notice in vain.
A Slovakian fraudster had stolen this notice out of his post office box and got paid the amount of € 911,-- as a substitute receiver at a post office by indicating his identity. The BAWAG/P.S.K., which made use of the Post AG as a subcontractor in this case, is denying its duty to pay for the damage because its business conditions “Briefdienst Inland”.
Mr. K was told that a substitute delivery was possible for amounts up to € 1.500,-- and that such amounts of money can not only be given to the receiver himself at the post office but also to every person showing his identity and the postal notice about the money transfer. Mr. K. did not know this before. Now he decided the accident annuity to be directly transferred to his bank account.
Ombudsman Dr. Kostelka informs the spectators that - by informing the post office respectively in written form - receivers of money transfers can decide that the payments are only allowed towards the receiver himself and not to substitute receivers. So it can be avoided that an unauthorized person gets money at the post office.
The Post AG did not send anybody to the TV discussion but informed that it had learnt its lesson form this example. Since the beginning of 2010 substitute receivers have to additionally show an authorization from the receiver himself. If it is not shown, the payment to the substitute receiver is denied. In 2009 the national police authority registered forty cases, in which illicit payments were made to substitute receivers without former authorization by the receiver himself.
Mr. K. has only few hope to get his accident annuity back from the meanwhile found fraudster. It is also doubtful that the AUVA (accident assurance) will cover the damage. Ombudsman Dr. Kostelka therefore invites the Post AG to cover the damage as a gesture of goodwill.