[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 C51/99-00(IB) (23 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1999/C51_99-00(IB).html Cite as: [1999] NISSCSC C51/99-00(IB), [1999] NISSCSC C51/99-(IB)

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

[1999] NISSCSC C51/99-00(IB) (23 February 2000)

 


Decision No: C51/99-00(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 Application by the claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 11 May 1999 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application, by the claimant, for leave to appeal against a decision dated 11th May 1999 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against the decision of an Adjudication Officer to the effect that claimant was not entitled to Incapacity Benefit from and including 4th March 1999 as she was capable of work.
2. The claimant requested a hearing of the application and I held such a hearing. The claimant contacted the office and indicated that she was unable to attend the hearing and wished me to proceed in her absence. The hearing was attended by Mr Fletcher of the Decision Making Appeals Unit representing the Adjudication Officer.
3. The claimant and Mr Fletcher had both given consent if I granted leave to appeal to my treating the application as an appeal and determining any question arising thereon as though it arose on appeal. I grant leave to appeal and proceed to determine the matter as an appeal in accordance with the consents given.
4. The claimant set out her grounds of appeal in an OSSC1 (NI) form dated 16th July 1999. No error of law was revealed in this document. Simply the claimant reiterated that she was unfit for work. She also alluded to the fact that she was waiting to see an orthopaedic specialist about her left knee. This was already known to the Tribunal at the time of the hearing.
5. None of the matters set out by the claimant indicate any error of law and Mr Fletcher so stated in his submission to me. He did, however state that the findings and reasons did appear to be somewhat inadequate and that he did not think there had been very much by way of an evidential assessment in the case.
6. I am in agreement with Mr Fletcher in that respect. The claimant had indicated in the questionnaire which she had completed in connection with the All Work Test that she had difficulties with walking, on stairs, in manual dexterity, with continence and in connection with her mental health. She had scored herself, on the physical activities alone some thirty-six points. The Tribunal scored three. In giving its reasons for the scoring it stated "The Claimant has some limitation in walking and in climbing stairs, but her physical and mental condition and capacity are not of a kind which would currently satisfy the required level of incapacity as referred in the various descriptors (each of which was considered by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence)." This is the entire reasoning of the Tribunal.
7. I do not consider that the above, even reading it against the background of the oral evidence (which perhaps indicated that the claimant's activities were not so limited as was set out in the questionnaire), adequately explains the reasons why the claimant failed to satisfy the All Work Test. As Mr Fletcher has indicated there is effectively no evidential assessment. If the Tribunal was accepting the Examining Doctor's assessment because it was independent and based on a clinical examination, it was entitled to do so but it should have explained to the claimant that this was the case. Similarly if it considered that the claimant either consciously or unconsciously overestimated her limitations it should again have so stated. Merely to record reasons such as set out above does no more than to set out the Tribunal's conclusion that the All Work Test was not satisfied. It does not address the case put forward by the claimant and it gives no indication of the Tribunal's thinking.
8. I set the decision aside for reasons of inadequate reasoning. I do not consider that this is a case were I can give the decision which the Tribunal should have given. I therefore remit the matter for rehearing before a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal which should, set out its evidential assessment with reasons. The latter need not by unduly lengthy or detailed.

Signed: M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

23 February 2000