Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A1/94(SDA) (12 September 1994)

 


Application A1/94(SDA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE 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 Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 8 December 1993
DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that she was not entitled to Severe Disablement Allowance from 1 April 1991 to 24 August 1993.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant did not appear and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw.
3. The claimant is now a 45 year old unemployed shop assistant and she became incapable of work on 10 January 1984 and received Severe Disablement Allowance from 24 December 1984.
4. She was examined on behalf of the Department by medical officers in January and in March 1991. On both occasions she was found capable of her usual occupation and as a result of those decisions the Adjudication Officer disallowed her claim from 20 March 1991.
5. The claimant appealed against that decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal and ultimately a Tribunal adjourned to consider a report from a Consultant Rheumatologist, A L B…, and in his report he summarises her position as follows:-

"This lady has a history consistent with assymetrical inflammatory polyarthritis producing morning stiffness and swelling of shoulders, hands and wrists in particular. On physical examination there is no evidence of active arthritis today. On the basis of her history it would be reasonable to diagnose mild or inactive rheumatoid arthritis. A blood test today show confirming that her arthritis is not active at present. I would regard her as fit for occupations which did not require moderate to heavy physical demands and where there were opportunities for periods of rest in a chair. I do not think she would be fit for occupations which involve long periods of unrelieved walking, standing or carrying. On today's showing I could not consider her as severely disabled."

6. Having received that report the Tribunal decided that the medical evidence was against the claimant and upheld the decision of the Adjudication Officer.
7. Claimant now seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law because "I believe the decision was made on insufficient evidence and they overruled my GP who states that I'm unfit for work. Also, failed to address the reason for overruling a professional person. Can they prove the doctor wrong?".
8. I have considered the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal which took into account medical evidence and recorded findings of fact and reasons for decision which although scant are nevertheless adequate and I am satisfied that no error of law can be found in the proceedings.
9. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

12 September 1994