[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 >> [1997] NISSCSC A2/97(SDA) (23 September 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1997/A2_97(SDA).html Cite as: [1997] NISSCSC A2/97(SDA)

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

[1997] NISSCSC A2/97(SDA) (23 September 1997)

 


Application No: A2/97(SDA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SEVERE DISABLEMENT 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

Belfast Medical Appeal Tribunal

dated 16 July 1996

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Medical Appeal Tribunal which held that his disability remained at 60% as found by the Adjudicating Medical Authority.
2. The grounds of claimant's appeal were that he had refused to be examined because there was a lady in the room and that it was not explained to him that he would be examined in a different room and that the Tribunal acted unfairly.
3. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant appeared but was not represented. The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mrs Fitzpatrick, Solicitor of the Department of Health & Social Services.
4. Claimant explained that he did not wish to be examined because there was a girl in the room. He had a pin in his hip and did not wear underpants because it was painful, so it would have embarrassed him to be examined. He also explained that he did not return the consent form which would have allowed the Tribunal to see his medical records because he thought they would have had the copies before them.
5. Mrs Fitzpatrick argued that the Tribunal had no option but to take the evidence which it had before it which were the findings of the medical examination of the Examining Medical Practitioner. As a result of that and the evidence in that report, claimant's disability was affirmed at 60%.
6. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents in this case. I think it is unfortunate that the claimant did not agree to have the medical reports before the Tribunal or to have himself medically examined. Nevertheless I am satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in law in the manner in which it approached the appeal, or in its decision or in its findings. If the claimant considers that he was unjustly treated then I think his remedy is to put in a fresh claim and he will then have an opportunity to produce whatever evidence he wishes.
7. I am satisfied that there is no error in law and the application for leave to appeal is refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

23 September 1997