Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A2/94(II) (19 August 1993)

 


A2/94(II)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INDUSTRIAL DISABLEMENT BENEFIT

Application out of time by the claimant for

leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of the

Medical Appeal Tribunal

dated 19 August 1993

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal, (the MAT), not to confirm the decision of the Review Medical Board on 21 October 1991, that there had been unforeseen aggravation since 25 January 1990 of the extent of the claimant's disablement resulting from the relevant loss of faculty. As the Tribunal expressly found, the effect of their decision that there had not been any unforeseen aggravation since 25 January 1990 was that the assessment made by the Medical Board on that date expired on 17 October 1991. The application for leave to appeal is a few days out of time, but for special reasons I accept and proceed to consider and determine it.
2. For the purposes of this determination it is unnecessary for me to refer to the background facts or set out the history of this case in any detail. In the claimant's notice of application for leave to appeal the stated grounds are "that the appeal panel made a decision supported by no or insufficient evidence." The claimant has, however, amplified these grounds in a series of letters and enclosures through which he has explained at considerable length his reasons for disputing the Tribunal's decision. I have studied all the material on which the claimant relies and it is on the case file. For the most part it comprises criticism of the medical experts upon whose reports the Tribunal relied, together with closely reasoned arguments as to why, in the claimant's opinion, his theories and conclusions should have been accepted. One of the major points raised is that the Tribunal did not have before them, X-rays of the claimant's thoracic spine. In the claimant's submission such X-rays were essential to the proper consideration of his case and I presume that this alleged omission forms the principal foundation for the claim that the Tribunal made a decision supported by no or insufficient evidence.
3. I should perhaps make special mention of two letters from the claimant, one of them received by the Independent Tribunal Service on 23 December 1993 and the other dated 19 January 1994. In these letters the claimant suggested that his case had been confused with someone else's, that the MAT decision might not relate to him, and that it might be illegal. The grounds for these somewhat startling suggestions were that the National Insurance Number quoted on the decision was not his, and that he had not been involved in an industrial accident on 20/6/1986, with which the decision was said to be concerned. Having studied the case file I am completely satisfied that the MAT decision which the claimant now wishes to appeal against does relate to him and should in no way be regarded as illegal. There are two obvious mistakes in the heading to that decision which the claimant has identified. The figure 8 in his National Insurance Number HM 58 42 79 D has been incorrectly given as a 3, and as appears from the Chairman's note of the submissions and evidence, the date of the relevant industrial accident was 20 June 1985, not 20 June 1986. It is unfortunate that these mistakes should have occurred; but they do not in any way invalidate the MAT's decision. Steps should be taken to have them corrected as soon as possible under the provisions relating to accidental errors in decisions:- see regulation 10 of the Social Security Adjudication Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987.
4. I have given careful consideration to all of the material submitted by the claimant in support of his application for leave to appeal and the conclusion which I have reached is that it does not disclose any grounds upon which it might be held that the decision of the MAT is or might be erroneous in point of law. It cannot be over-emphasised that in this jurisdiction an appeal to the Commissioner lies only on questions of law. It was open to the claimant to provide the Tribunal with any evidence which he considered might assist his case; but so far as the Tribunal were concerned it was for them to decide whether the evidence at their disposal was sufficient to enable them to reach a decision, and indeed in this instance there had been an earlier adjournment to enable additional medical evidence to be obtained. As the GB Commissioner commented in unreported decision CM/168/1990 - " On issues of fact, medical opinion, diagnosis, etc the decision of the Medical Authorities is final."
5. As explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 above I am of the opinion that the grounds relied upon by the claimant in this application are without foundation. I have also considered whether there are any other valid grounds for holding that the decision of the MAT is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there are not. Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

(Date):