[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 >> [1998] NISSCSC A22/98(DLA) (11 September 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1998/A22_98(DLA).html Cite as: [1998] NISSCSC A22/98(DLA)

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

[1998] NISSCSC A22/98(DLA) (11 September 1998)

 


Application No: A22/98(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
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 Newry Disability Appeal Tribunal dated 25 November 1997
DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision dated 25 November 1997 of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Newry.
2. I held an oral hearing of the application which Mr Brady attended to represent the claimant. The claimant herself did not attend. Mrs Swann attended to represent the Adjudication Officer.
3. Having considered this matter it does not appear to me that any error has been shown or indeed is apparent in the Tribunal's decision. I therefore refuse leave to appeal and dismiss this application.
4. At the hearing Mr Brady stated that it was difficult to ascertain where the Tribunal had erred. He said that possibly psychiatric reports could have been asked for as the Examining Medical Practitioner had indicated that the problem was psychiatric. He readily conceded in response to question that he did not produce such reports at the hearing nor was an adjournment sought to seek same. Mr Brady also said that the Adjudication Officer did not indicate where he considered the claimant's condition had improved but in response to my questions, did indicate that the Examining Medical Practitioner's report would show this. He said that there was a plethora of medical evidence but accepted that the Examining Medical Practitioner's report was the most up to date.
5. Mrs Swann opposed the application. She said that the Tribunal had quite clearly indicated that the GP's records were before the Tribunal and that they showed no indication of any significant change in the claimant's condition since the date of the Examining Medical Practitioner's report. The Tribunal had clearly accepted the Examining Medical Practitioner's report as a true reflection of the claimant's abilities and clinical condition and this it was entitled to do. There was no error of law on the Tribunal's part in not obtaining a psychiatric report.
6. As regards the clinical findings the Tribunal was within its rights to come to the conclusion thereon that the claimant was no longer entitled to the care or mobility component and the claimant's own evidence did not indicate any requirement for supervision when walking out of doors. The Tribunal cannot be faulted in this case for accepting the claimant's own evidence on the hearing as regards her ability to walk unsupervised out of doors.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

11 September 1998