[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 >> [1999] NISSCSC C37/99(IB) (9 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1999/C37_99(IB).html Cite as: [1999] NISSCSC C37/99(IB)

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

[1999] NISSCSC C37/99(IB) (9 March 2000)

 


Decision No: C37/99(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCAPACITY BENEFIT Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 9 March 1999 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leaving having been granted by the Tribunal Chairman, by the claimant against a decision dated 9th March 1999 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Omagh. A hearing of the appeal was not requested and having considered the circumstances of the case and the papers I am satisfied that I can decide the appeal without a hearing.
2. The claimant's grounds of appeal were contained in a letter dated 9th August 1999 to the Tribunal clerk and a further letter dated 29th December 1999 to the Registrar in the Commissioner's office. This letter cited decision C19/98(IB) in support of its contention that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous in law, in that it did not explain why it had rejected the claimant's evidence in relation to the activities of sitting and rising from sitting.
3. Central Adjudication Services (now the Decision Making Appeals Unit) made observations on the appeal by letter of 21st November 1999. Mr Toner of that office opposed the appeal stating that the Tribunal had made proper findings of fact and given adequate reasons for its decision in accordance with regulation 23(3A) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995.
4. The Tribunal's reasons were as follows:-

"Taking into account the submission papers, the additional

written submission and medical reports and the oral evidence

given to the Tribunal, we conclude that claimant has functional

limitations in the areas of standing, walking, climbing stairs,

and bending and kneeling, to the extent set out in the All Work

Test assessment."

That was the entirety of the reasoning.

5. I do not consider that the reasons in this case were adequate. They do no more than state that the Tribunal has made certain findings of fact. It is quite evident from its decision on the case that the Tribunal considered the claimant's limitations in relation to the All Work Test to be less than the claimant was contending. This may either be because it did not find the claimant's evidence reliable or it may be because, while accepting the evidence was reliable, it considered that the stated worsening in the claimant's condition post the questionnaire had also been post the date of the Adjudication Officer's decision. I have no means of knowing and indeed there may have been some other reason for the non acceptance of the claimant's assessment of her condition. At hearing the claimant had put forward that she had difficulties in relation to sitting and rising from sitting. It would not necessarily be an error of law not to specifically comment on each activity put forward by the claimant and in fact the Tribunal in this case has made findings of fact in relation to the activities of sitting and rising from sitting. What it has not done, however, is to deal in any way with the claimant's contentions. The claimant was contending for greater limitations and therefore more points than the Tribunal found her to have. The Tribunal has not explained even in general terms why it rejected her contentions. In this case in the absence of such an explanation which need not be unduly lengthy the claimant could not understand why she lost her appeal.
6. I do not consider that this is a case were I can give a decision which the Tribunal should have given. I therefore set the Tribunal's decision aside and remit the matter for rehearing before a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal which, should bear in mind the views set out above.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

9 March 2000