Application No: A11/93(IVB)

	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)
	(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	INVALIDITY BENEFIT

	Application by the above-named claimant for
	leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner
	on a question of law from the decision of the
	N... Social Security Appeal Tribunal
	dated 15 October 1992

	DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal that claimant was not entitled to invalidity benefit from 3 June 1992 to 22 October 1992.

2.	I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant was not present but was represented by Mr Brady.  The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.

3.	Briefly the facts are that the claimant who is now a 30 year old unemployed baker, became unfit for work in September 1991.  He suffers from dermatitis and chronic asthma and was unable to follow his usual occupation of a baker because of his medical condition.  It was accepted that because of his condition he would never be able to return to his work as a baker.  He was examined on behalf of the Department by a Medical Officer in February and in May 1992, both were of the opinion that he was incapable of following his usual occupation but capable of certain work within limits.  As a result of those examinations the Adjudication Officer disallowed his claim from 3 June 1992.

4.	Claimant appealed against that decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which disallowed his appeal.  The Tribunal made the following findings of fact:-
		"Claimant has worked as factory worker and as a baker.

		His usual occupation is as a baker but he is incapable of this
		as soda flour causes dermatitis.

		Since giving up work as a baker he has clear skin and no
		problem with dermatitis.  This is not incapacitating as
		regards other work.

		His asthma is adequately controlled by inhalers and
		medication and is not, on the evidence, so severe as to
		prevent his engaging in alternative work.

		Taking into account his age, work experience and health,
		there is no reason why he could not engage in a job as a
		packer.  There may be other forms of work equally suitable
		but certainly the job of packer is well within his capacity."

	and gave reasons for its decision:-

		".... On the weight of medical evidence claimant is not 
		incapable of all remunerative work....."

5.	Claimant now seeks leave to appeal against that decision on the grounds that -

		"The Tribunal failed to give an adequate statement of the
		reason for its decision and the findings of fact on which
		it was based.  It also made a decision based on insufficient
		evidence.  In the light of the discussions at the Tribunal,
		from reading the Tribunal's decision, I do not understand why
		I was disallowed."

6.	At the hearing before me Mr Brady said there was a lot of discussion at the Tribunal relating to claimant's medical problems.  He had applied for a number of jobs but was unsuccessful and was given to understand it was because of his health problems.  He then discussed the suggested job of a packer and said that the factories in N... would be unsuitable for claimant because of his asthma, and that it was difficult for claimant on reading the decision of the Tribunal to know why he was refused the benefit.

7.	Mr Brady took issue with the Tribunal on the findings of fact that claimant's asthma is "adequately controlled".  He said that it is difficult to know what was meant by "adequately controlled", that this was a matter of degree and that it might be controlled sufficiently for him to continue a normal life but not to engage in employment.  

8.	Mr McAvoy argued that the Tribunal complied with its statutory obligations, that it considered all the evidence, gave a decision which was clear and that the findings of fact set out why it considered that claimant was fit for work.  He said that the Tribunal did not confine its decision to him working as a packer but said that there were other forms of work which would be suitable for him and that this was not the type of case where a Tribunal would be obliged to spell out a specific job.

9.	I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents in this case.  Grounds of appeal are that the Tribunal failed to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision and the findings of fact on which it is based, or that it was based on insufficient evidence.  I am satisfied that the Tribunal did consider all the evidence, that it gave proper findings of fact on that evidence which it was entitled to do, and that it gave an adequate statement for the reasons for its decision.  I can find no error of law in the proceedings, consequently leave to appeal is refused.

	(Signed):  C C G McNally

	COMMISSIONER

	9 July 1993