[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 A68/98(IB) (29 January 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1998/A68_98(IB).html Cite as: [1998] NISSCSC A68/98(IB)

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

[1998] NISSCSC A68/98(IB) (29 January 1999)

 


Application No: A68/98(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

INCAPACITY 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 Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 6 April 1998

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application for leave to appeal by Miss M... against a decision dated 6 April 1998 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (herein after called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast.
2. I held an oral hearing of the application which Miss M... attended and which was also attended by Mr Fletcher of Central Adjudication Services to represent the Adjudication Officer.
3. My decision is that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4. Miss M... gives her grounds for seeking leave that the Tribunal had erred in law in that the medical assessor had stated that Mr Bell, the claimant's consultant, would not use a medical term such as "spinal muscular rheumatism" which the claimant had stated was Mr Bell's diagnosis and that this had disadvantaged her in adequately presenting her case. She also said the Tribunal had erred in not taking aboard her contentions in relation to pain.
5. Mr Fletcher opposed the application submitting that the medical assessor did give a description of fibromyalgia which was diagnosed and could tell that it meant pain in the pilerous tissues of the body. The Tribunal also had before it a leaflet about fibromyalgia which it did consider. He said it was fair to say that the Tribunal did consider pain and fatigue in reaching its decision. He said that he did not think the medical assessor had stepped outside his role. He had given a description of the medication and of the sacro-iliac joints. He gave no views on the prescribed descriptors.
6. In Mr Fletcher's submission the Tribunal reached its decision on the basis of the Adjudication Officer's report and the medical report and took into consideration Miss M...'s evidence to the Tribunal.
7. As I mentioned at the hearing I can only overturn the Tribunal's decision if it is in error of law. In this case I am unable to ascertain any error of law. Even if the Medical Assessor was incorrect (as it appears was the case) in his stating that Dr Bell would not use a term such as "spinal muscular rheumatism", it does not appear to me that Miss M... was disadvantaged thereby in presenting her case. She obviously gave a very full statement of her complaints to the Tribunal and these included the complaint of pain. The Tribunal has obviously investigated this matter extremely thoroughly. In addition it does not appear to have based its reasoning on the Medical Assessor's statement in relation to the use of the term "spinal muscular rheumatism". The Tribunal has, as Mr Fletcher stated, based its decision on the findings and observations of the examining doctor which it found to be more compelling than the evidence of the claimant. A Tribunal is entitled to assess evidence and where there is a conflict, may prefer some evidence to other evidence. This the Tribunal obviously did in this case and I can find no error of law in it so doing.
8. Similarly I can not find that the Tribunal in any way erred in that it ignored Miss M...'s evidence in relation to pain. The reverse would appear to be the case as the Tribunal did indicate in its reasons that it took on board the claimant's evidence. The Tribunal is not obliged to accept that evidence in its entirety, nor indeed is it obliged to find that the evidence satisfies the relevant criteria. In this case the Tribunal has weighed up the evidence and has reached its decision. The decision is sustainable based on the evidence and the Tribunal has given clear reasons for its decision. I am unable to ascertain any error in the decision and I therefore dismiss the application.

(Signed): M.F. Brown

COMMISSIONER

29 January 1999