49 A woman who had suffered a knee injury which was recognised as an industrial injury in 2005 was granted compensation by the National Board of Industrial Injuries some years later as she could no longer work full-time and had thus suffered a loss of working capacity. However, before she received the compensation, the insurance company appealed to the National Social Appeals Board, which overturned the decision. The Board took the view that the woman could handle a job that did not put any strain on her knee. If the woman’s knee problems prevented her from working full-time, the reason must be a more recent injury to the same knee. The woman lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. In a letter asking the National Social Appeals Board for a statement on the case, the Ombudsman provided an account of the case on the basis of the material accompanying the woman’s complaint. He referred to a special rule which implies that a loss of working capacity is regarded as the result of the industrial injury unless it is more likely that it is caused by something else. The Board had referred to the more recent injury to the woman’s knee as the cause of any reduced working capacity. In this connection, the Ombudsman pointed out that the special rule also implies that subsequent injuries may be comprised by the recognised industrial injury if there is a clear connection between the original injury and the later injury. Moreover, the National Board of Industrial Injuries had apparently taken the view that there was such a connection. After receiving the Ombudsman’s request for a statement, the National Social Appeals Board reopened the woman’s case. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case and informed the woman of the possibility of lodging another complaint with him when she received the new decision by the National Social Appeals Board. When the Ombudsman writes to an authority asking for a statement on a case – and in this connec­tion provides an account of the case – the authority sometimes decides to reconsider the case. If so, the Ombudsman usually takes no further steps in the case. In 2012, 42 cases were closed in this way. A woman lodged a complaint when her state education grant was delayed by several months after a change of study. When the Ombudsman entered the case, the specific problem was resolved within a week. However, a telephone conversation with a state education grant adviser at the woman’s educational establishment suggested that the late payment might be due to a systemic fault in minSU, the electronic self-service system for applying for student grants and loans. The Ombudsman there­fore asked the Agency for Higher Education and Educational Support whether there was a systemic fault and, if so, how the Agency intended to rectify the problem. The Agency explained that the error had occurred during the manual handling of the case. Although it was a rare occurrence, the Agency had initiated a discussion in the case worker group to ensure that they all knew how to process such cases correctly. In addition, the Ministry of Children and Education would enter into a dialogue with the Agency to prepare guidelines, manuals or the like in order to minimise the risk of errors. On this basis, the Ombudsman closed his investigation. If the Ombudsman gets the impression that a specific case reflects a general problem – a systemic fault – he will usually give high priority to establishing whether this is the case and what can be done to resolve the problem. This applies especially in cases related to the subsistence basis of the citizens involved.