Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1993] NISSCSC A1/93(SB) (21 January 1992)

 


Application No: A1/93(SB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SICKNESS BENEFIT

Application out of time 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 21 January 1992

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is a late application by the claimant against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that claimant was not entitled to sickness benefit from 3 April 1991 to 1 July 1991.
2. I held an oral hearing at which claimant appeared but was not represented and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy. At the hearing I accepted the late application for special reasons.
3. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a 34 year old unemployed clerical worker who received sickness benefit having become unfit for work in November 1990.
4. He was examined by Medical Officers on behalf of the Department in February 1991 and in March 1991. On both occasions he was found capable of his usual occupation and as a result an Adjudication Officer decided he was no longer entitled to sickness benefit from 3 April 1991. Claimant appealed against this decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which initially adjourned to get a report from a Psychiatrist. The same Tribunal re-convened having received a report from a Consultant Psychiatrist who expressed the opinion that he could not think of any disease or disorder, mental or physical that could accommodate his subjective symptom complex.
5. The Appeal Tribunal considered all the evidence and decided that the weight of the medical evidence was clearly and overwhelmingly against the claimant and rejected his appeal.
6. The claimant sought leave to appeal to the Commissioner on the following point of law:-

"Did not have up to date relevant medical evidence and reports

which are now becoming available."

7. At the hearing before me claimant detailed his various complaints and criticised the attitude of the Psychiatrist to him and handed in a letter from a Consultant Neurologist in the Royal Victoria Hospital to confirm that he suffered from Mitochondria which affects the metabolism of cells producing a wide range of effects.

This letter is dated 6 April 1993, consequently it was not before the Tribunal nor is there any evidence that it relates to the period now being considered, namely from April to July 1991.

8. Mr McAvoy argued that the Tribunal did not err in law in that it had 2 medical reports and a Psychiatrist's report and it accepted this medical evidence and therefore was entitled to come to the decision to which it came.
9. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents in this case. I am quite satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in law in that it made a finding on the evidence before it, which it was entitled to do. Claimant now produces a report from a doctor which is dated 6 April 1993. I can see no relevance to the period which is now being considered but if claimant has appealed against subsequent disallowances which have not yet been before an Appeal Tribunal then he may well have an opportunity to produce further medical evidence to that Tribunal. But as far as the Tribunal which I have to consider is concerned, I can find no error in law in the proceedings. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER