[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 >> [2000] NISSCSC C12/00-01(DLA) (6 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/2000/C12_00-01(DLA).html Cite as: [2000] NISSCSC C12/-1(DLA), [2000] NISSCSC C12/00-01(DLA)

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

[2000] NISSCSC C12/00-01(DLA) (6 February 2001)

 


Decision No: C12/00-01(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Appeal to a Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision

dated 23 March 2000

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by myself, by the claimant against a decision dated 23^rd March 2000 of an Appeal Tribunal sitting at Belfast. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal in relation to Disability Living Allowance. It upheld a decision dated 14^th September 1999 of an Adjudication Officer refusing to review a decision of an earlier Adjudication Officer to the effect that the claimant was not entitled to either component of Disability Living Allowance from and including 18^th March 1999.
2. The claimant appealed and the grounds of appeal were set out on a form dated 24^th June 2000. The grounds given were that the decision was not supported by evidence because the claimant was on constant medication for epilepsy and because the Tribunal had not looked into the medical reports from his doctor.
3. The claimant had sought a hearing of the application for leave. I considered that I could properly decide the matter without such hearing. I therefore so notified the claimant and gave the claimant an opportunity to put any further points that he wished to put forward in writing. He did not put forward any further points and I granted leave to appeal.
4. The Decision Making and Appeals Unit of the Department made observations on the appeal by letter dated 5^th December 2000 from their Mrs Gunning. Mrs Gunning opposed the appeal stating that it was apparent that the Tribunal's decision was supported by evidence and that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the evidence before it including a report dated 14^th March 2000 from the claimant's General Practitioner. She contended that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the accepted evidence and that it was quite apparent from the reasons for decision that the Tribunal did not accept that the claimant had satisfied the entitlement conditions for Disability Living Allowance.
5. The claimant's adviser's were given an opportunity to make further comment on the observations of the Department but did not do so.
6. I consider that Mrs Gunning is correct in that the Tribunal does appear to have taken into consideration all the evidence including the report completed by Dr Y... dated 14^th March 2000. I also consider that the Tribunal was entitled, as it obviously did to prefer the evidence contained in the medical records to the claimant's evidence. The Tribunal's decision is perhaps recorded in a somewhat confused manner but it is nonetheless adequate to show that its findings were that the claimant had had no recorded seizures since May 1995, that he had no difficulty changing from sitting to standing, moving around indoors and using the stairs and that he did not have a history of falls. All these findings appear to be supported by the medical evidence.
7. These findings are adequate to found the Tribunal's decision with relation to the high and middle rate of the care component and the high rate of the mobility component does not appear to be in contention. The medical evidence is also adequate to support the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no entitlement to the lower rate of the mobility component.
8. My concern and the reason why I granted leave to appeal was in the manner in which the Tribunal had dealt with the lower rate of the care component. I was not concerned with the question of whether or not the claimant could prepare a cooked main meal for himself if he had the ingredients to hand as there does not appear to be any evidence whether from the claimant or otherwise that he needed any assistance to do this.
9. My concern was in relation to whether or not the Tribunal had dealt adequately with the alternative means of satisfying the conditions for the lower rate care component i.e. that the claimant was so severely disabled that he required attention in connection with bodily functions for a significant portion of the day. Amongst the other problems diagnosed by the claimant's General Practitioner in the report of 14^th March 2000 was "severe anxiety/depression/agoraphobia". The claimant himself had given evidence in his claim form that he needed encouragement to attend to personal hygiene because of his depression. He also stated that he needed help in the bath because of his fear of taking a fit. The claimant stated that the average time which it took him to wash or to have a bath or shower was one hour and that he needed the help with it seven days per week once per day.
10. The fear of taking an epileptic fit is not of itself a disability. The claimant's evidence was not such as would indicate that he needed attention for the full one hour per day and there appear to me to be inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence in relation to having no interest in his appearance and his subsequent statement later in the claim form that he did not have to be reminded or encouraged to get dressed or undressed. The medical evidence from his own doctor was also to the effect that there was no history of self-neglect or need of prompting motivation encouragement etc.
11. Although, therefore, I do not consider that the recording of this decision is good, I do not think that the decision was actually in error of law in relation to the low rate of the care component. The Tribunal has indicated clearly that it prefers the medical evidence to that of the claimant. As this is evidence from the claimant's own General Practitioner the Tribunal was quite entitled to rely on it. It is obvious that the Tribunal did not consider the claimant's evidence reliable, as it was not consistent with the medical evidence.
12. I therefore do not consider that the Tribunal decision is in error of law. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): M F BROWN

COMMISSIONER

6 FEBRUARY 2001