[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 C10/98(DLA) (5 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1998/C10_98(DLA).html Cite as: [1998] NISSCSC C10/98(DLA)

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

[1998] NISSCSC C10/98(DLA) (5 March 1998)

 


Decision No: C10/98(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 claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Craigavon Disability Appeal Tribunal dated 11 April 1995

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This case, together with an Invalidity Benefit appeal was heard at an oral hearing of claimant's application for leave to appeal against two separate decisions, one being a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (SSAT) and the other a Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT). The DAT held that he was not entitled to either the care or the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
2. Claimant sought leave to appeal to the Commissioner against that decision on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law in that:-

"My medical evidence was not fully considered and I was not given

a chance to get a representative. Mrs M... was not my

representative, she was a witness, and this was told to the

Clerk, and he wrote it down."

3. At the oral hearing the claimant appeared with his wife and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as the appeal.
4. Mr & Mrs M... both addressed me and the point they made was that the Tribunal did not properly examine the medical evidence and that he was capable of working on certain days and on certain days he was not capable of working, and that he was entitled to benefit in respect of those days. They said that the Tribunal did not give proper consideration to the medical evidence. Mr Shaw said that the Tribunal had considered the evidence extensively and that it was entitled to come to the decision to which it came and that it made proper findings of fact and that there was no error of law in the proceedings.
5. I have considered all that has been said. However, there is no substance in his argument that the Tribunal did not properly examine the medical evidence. The Tribunal received a report from a Consultant Psychiatrist, it considered the hospital records from Craigavon Area Hospital and notes from the Belfast City Hospital. It also considered a letter from Dr H... to Dr K... which was handed in to the Tribunal and found that his level of complaint was not consistent with the weight of objective medical evidence.
6. I have every sympathy with the claimant. I think he deserves credit for the fact that he tried to get back to work and that on some occasions he had to give up. Nevertheless I can find no error of law in the findings of the Tribunal and consequently I must therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

5 March 1998