[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 C74/97(DLA) (30 June 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1997/C74_97(DLA).html Cite as: [1997] NISSCSC C74/97(DLA)

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

[1997] NISSCSC C74/97(DLA) (30 June 1998)

 


Decision No: C74/97(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of the

Belfast Disability Appeal Tribunal

dated 10 February 1997

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an appeal by Mrs A... from a decision dated 10 February 1997 of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting in Belfast which decided that Mrs A... was not entitled to either the care or mobility components of Disability Living Allowance from 13 December 1995.
2. The claimant's grounds of appeal are in part contained in an OSSC1 form dated 24 September 1997. The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw who made observations on the appeal by letter of 26 February 1998. The claimant having seen Mr Shaw's observations wrote further on 30 March 1998. I have read and noted all the papers in this appeal including those documents.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by a Commissioner. An oral hearing was not requested and, having read the papers, I am satisfied that I can deal with this matter without an oral hearing.
4. My decision is that the decision of the Disability Appeal Tribunal dated 10 February 1997 was not erroneous in point of law. The claimant's appeal is therefore dismissed.
5. In the OSSC1 form and her letter of 30 March 1998 the claimant's main ground for appealing was that the Tribunal had decided the appeal on the basis of a medical report dated 14 March 1996. She said her condition had deteriorated since then and this was not portrayed to the Tribunal. Claimant also said that the Tribunal had misconstrued her General Practitioner's views on her walking ability.
6. Mr Shaw indicated that the Tribunal had before it a letter from a House Officer from Dr F… clinic (which Mrs A... attended) which was only 4 months old at the date of hearing and the Tribunal also had General Practitioner records. Mr Shaw also mentioned observations which had been made in 1995 of the claimant exercising. Papers relating to these observations were held by the Tribunal Chairman at the time of the hearing and indeed Mrs A... herself made mention of the matter in her letters to DLA Branch.
7. As regards the question of the medical evidence I note that the date of claim in this matter is 13 December 1995. Certainly therefore the medical report of 14 March 1996 is relevant. As regards the question of subsequent deterioration, it is a matter for the claimant to produce such evidence (medical or otherwise) as she wishes to support her claim. The onus of proof lies with the claimant. If a Disability Appeal Tribunal considers that further medical evidence is necessary it can, with the consent of the claimant, adjourn to obtain same. It is a matter for the Tribunal whether or not it considers it needs to obtain further evidence. The Tribunal decided not to seek same in this case and having seen the evidence that was before them their decision appears to me to be quite reasonable. As Mr Shaw has stated the Tribunal had a letter from Dr F…'s clinic dated 1 October 1996 and also had copy medical records.
8. As regards the issue of previous observations (which had led to the termination of a life award on review from 29 March 1995) there is no indication in the Tribunal's record of its reasons that these observations formed any part of its reasoning. As the Tribunal gave very full reasons for its decision it appears that the observations were not part of its reasoning.
9. As regards the issue of the interpretation of the General Practitioner's opinion on Mrs A...'s walking ability, I do not consider that the Tribunal misinterpreted same. The General Practitioner had stated he did not know how far the claimant could walk and estimated same at 80 to 100 yards indicating some uncertainty by a question mark before this distance. The Tribunal commented in full on the reliability of the GP's report given its views on the reliability of the claimant's own evidence and the relationship of that evidence to the GP's report. The assessment of reliability of evidence is a matter for the Tribunal and it evidently saw and questioned Mrs A... fully prior to reaching its assessment. This assessment also formed a part of the reasons for the decision and it was quite proper that it should do so.
10. I can find no other error of law in the Tribunal's decision, I therefore dismiss Mrs A...'s appeal.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

30 June 1998