APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES The Board stated in its reply to the Ombudsman that the couple would need help with the physical care of a child. Their disability would make it difficult for them to fulfil the function of carers to a baby to the usual extent, and the child would have its basic needs for care met by changing people, possibly without any special qualifications. In addition, the Board assessed that it would be difficult for the couple to care for a child emotionally. The Board was therefore of the opinion that there was obvious or reasonable doubt about the couple’s ability to care adequately for a child. After reviewing the case, and in the light of the more detailed information on the grounds for the decision of the National Social Appeals Board which the Board had provided in its statement to him, the Ombudsman could not criticise that the Board had made a decision refusing the couple artificial insemination treatment. Among other things, the Ombudsman gave weight to the fact that the Board had balanced the considerations involved on the basis of an individual assessment, in accordance with its obligations under the law and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Ombudsman found that the grounds given by the National Social Appeals Board for its decision should have stated the main considerations which had entered into the weighing process and which had been decisive for the decision. This was especially true because the right to use artificial insemination is covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and because any limitation of this right requires that a fair balance is struck between the interests of the couple seeking treatment and any other relevant interests, including the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of treatment. 2012-20. Causal relationship between industrial injury and established loss of working capacity A man complained about a decision made by the National Social Appeals Board in an industrial injury case. The documents of the case showed that the authorities had recognised that the man had suffered an industrial injury. The Ombudsman asked the Board for a statement on the case. In its statement to the Ombudsman, the Board wrote that it had been established that the man had suffered a loss of working capacity. However, the Board did not assess his loss of working capacity to be a consequence of his industrial injury. 117