Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A11-94(IVB) (12 January 1994)

 


Decision No: C11/94(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 claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 15 March 1994 DECISION 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 upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that the claimant was not entitled to invalidity benefit from 22 September 1993 to 2 October 1993.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant was represented by Mr Brady and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is an unemployed clerical worker aged 30 who was paid invalidity benefit from May 1993. She was examined by a Medical Officer of the Department in September 1993 who expressed the opinion that she was capable of her usual occupation.
3. Claimant appealed against that decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal and that Tribunal made the following findings of fact material to its decision:-

"Claimant is 30 years old unemployed clerk.

Her stated causes of incapacity are (i) low back pain (ii) prolapseduterus and (iii) PMT.

Her low back pain is treated with painkillers. Although Doctor R in her report refers to sciatica we are not convinced that this is the problem; in particular it is not referred to as such by her General Practitioner and she has had no specialist referral. We find that it is not incapacitating as regards her usual occupation.

There is no evidence that the prolapsed uterus is causing any major problem of incontinence and we find it is not incapacitating. Her PMT can be distressful but we are satisfied that it is sufficiently under control with medication.

In all the circumstances she is fit to resume her usual work, at least part time."

and recorded reasons for its decision as:-

"While Claimant has a combination of symptoms they are not, taken together, incapacitating as regards her usual job of clerk.

Section 57(1)(a)(ii) not satisfied.

The burden of proving incapacity rests with Claimant (R(S)13/52) and the medical evidence and other direct evidence adduced by her is not sufficient to discharge that burden.

(R(S) 11/51 considered - having taken into account the range of duties involved in clerical work, and the opportunity to alternate between sedentary work and work involving limited mobility, tribunal are satisfied she is capable of this work."

4. At the hearing before me Mr Brady argued that the Tribunal did not say why it preferred the Department's opinion to that of the claimant's own doctor. He also argued that it did not consider the combination of the claimant's medical problems but looked at each one separately.
5. Mr McAvoy argued that the Tribunal made a very conscious effort to look at the evidence and it found that sciatica was not the main problem, that it saw and heard the claimant and that it was entitled to come to the decision to which it came. He said it had seen the letter from claimant's own doctor which was not very supportive which said "she complains of low back pain radiating into her left hip which restricts her movement and the pain is worse after activity but also is exacerbated on prolonged sitting. At times the pain interferes with sleep." He records that she also had a prolapsed uterus following her last delivery and that she had premenstrual tension and that this evidence was all before the Tribunal, nevertheless it decided that the claimant was capable of work even on a part-time basis.
6. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and both parties having consented I treated the hearing as the hearing of the appeal. I am satisfied that the Tribunal considered the matter to the best of their ability, they considered all the evidence and they properly recorded their decision and consequently no error of law is to be found in the decision and I therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

12 January 1994