Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1992] NISSCSC A17/92(IVB) (19 November 1992)

 


Application No: A17/92(IVB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INVALIDITY 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 N( Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 25 February 1992
DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that claimant was not entitled to invalidity benefit from 22 October 1991 to 9 January 1992, by a majority decision, one member dissenting.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant was represented by Mr Michael Brady and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.
3. The facts are that claimant is a 37 year old man who worked as a labourer until he became unfit for work in 1990 by reason of pain and swelling in his right knee. His doctors have submitted certificates referring to arthritis of the right knee.
4. Claimant was examined by a Medical Officer on behalf of the Department in June 1991 and by a Consultant Surgeon, Mr T O M(, FRCS in September 1991 and as a result of those reports the Senior Medical Officer advised that claimant should be accepted as incapable of his usual occupation but capable of work not involving standing or walking for long periods of time. As a result claimant was disallowed benefit from 22 October 1991.
5. At the hearing before me Mr Brady argued that claimant's problem with his knee was ongoing, that it was getting progressively worse. At the Tribunal there was a lot of discussion about Mr M('s report and arguments were addressed to the Tribunal as to why he could not do jobs such as a doorman or a gate-keeper. Mr Brady said that the Tribunal relied too much on Mr M('s report and the jobs described by Mr M... and argued that as a Surgeon he would have very limited knowledge of what was entailed in the work of a doorman, gate-keeper or a general receptionist. While accepting that the claimant was not incapable of all work, nevertheless Mr Brady said he would need to be trained for the jobs suggested by the Tribunal and it would have been much more desirable if the Tribunal had considered other alternative jobs and spelt out to the claimant what the Tribunal considered he was capable of doing.
6. Mr McAvoy said that he had every sympathy with the claimant. He said claimant tried to go back to work but he had to give it up, nevertheless the Tribunal made a finding of fact and although the decision was very scant, he considered it complied with the requirements and said that the Tribunal was entitled to come to the decision it came to on the medical evidence.
7. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the papers and the medical reports in this case. I also have sympathy with the claimant, nevertheless I merely have to consider whether or not the Tribunal erred in law and I can find no error in law in the Tribunal's decision. It reached a decision which it was entitled to do on the evidence and the application for leave to appeal is refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

19 November 1992