[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1994] NISSCSC A6/94(IVB) (27 April 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/A6_94(IVB).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC A6/94(IVB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1994] NISSCSC A6/94(IVB) (27 April 1994)

 


Application No: A6/94(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 out of time by the above-named claimant for

leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

Belfast Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 29 September 1993

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Belfast Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was held that he was not entitled to invalidity benefit for the period from 21 December 1992 to 5 May 1993. The application is out of time but for special reasons I accept it.
2. The grounds upon which the claimant relies, as set out in his notice of application for leave to appeal, are as follows:-

"That tribunal were wrong to ask me to see specialist, at my own

expense considering I was on income support cost £95.00. He was

also wrong to dismiss so lightly DPIR Part II in saying deafness

not being noticed by doctor was a minor discretion. (Notes attached)."

The notice of application was accompanied by notes in which the claimant amplified and explained the grounds relied upon. He was also critical of the manner in which the Tribunal Chairman had conducted the hearing of the appeal.

3. The allegation that the Tribunal were wrong to ask the claimant to see a specialist at his own expense arises from the fact that at the first hearing of his appeal before the Appeal Tribunal on 21 June 1993 the claimant stated that he had visited a Dr T... privately on 3 June 1993 and had had X-rays taken. By way of evidence he submitted a letter on note-paper headed "Dr A J T..., MD, FRCP, Consultant Rheumatologist", and signed by a Mrs B( D(, Secretary, which was in the following terms:-

"Dear Mr J...,

As a result of your consultation on 3/6/93 I have to advise you

to refrain from working for the forseeable future, you should not try

to put any pressure on shoulders, neck, or waist. To ignore this advice

could and probably would result in more serious and permanent damage to

your cervical spine. I would recommend you to make an appointment to

see me in about 12 months."

The Tribunal evidently took the view that the claimant should be given an opportunity to obtain a more detailed report from Dr T... and they accordingly adjourned the hearing to enable him to do so. In my opinion that was a reasonable and sensible course to adopt. In the form in which it had been presented, the letter on Dr T...'s note-paper was not authenticated by him. It was, moreover, unclear whether the advice to the claimant was to refrain from his normal work as a roofer, or from work in general; including its less strenuous forms. I have no doubt that the Tribunal's objective in adjourning the appeal was to assist the claimant in his opposition to the Adjudication Officer's decision that he was not entitled to invalidity benefit. The suggestion was not, however, that the claimant should, at his own expense, undergo a further medical examination. He had already taken steps to consult a doctor privately, and he was being afforded an opportunity to derive maximum benefit from the expenditure he had incurred by presenting the evidence from such consultation in the form in which it might best assist his case. The Tribunal were under no obligation to grant an adjournment and would have been fully justified in proceeding to determine the appeal on the evidence at their disposal. There is in my view nothing to suggest that the Tribunal considered that any further evidence was necessary to enable them to reach a decision or that they placed any special emphasis on a report from Dr T....

4. In the event the claimant decided not to obtain any further information from Dr T... or to ask him to authenticate the letter signed by Mrs D(. At the claimant's request the hearing of his appeal proceeded and in my opinion the Tribunal acted entirely properly in dealing with the case on the basis of the information then made available to them. It was, moreover, for the Tribunal to decide what weight was to be attached to the evidence placed at their disposal and in my view there is nothing to suggest that they erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the claimant was capable of light work.
5. I have considered the grounds relied upon by the claimant in support of his application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner and have reached the conclusion that they are without substance. I have also considered whether there are any other grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in this case is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there are not. Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.
6. The claimant has requested an oral hearing of his application; but having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward for the request, I am satisfied that a hearing is not required. The request has therefore been refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

27 April 1994