Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1995] NISSCSC A27/95(IS) (2 January 1996)

 


Application No: A27/95(IS)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCOME SUPPORT 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 Magherafelt Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 7 February 1995 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 upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer who reviewed the decision of a previous Adjudication Officer of 9 June 1993 which had awarded claimant disability premium from that date, and found that claimant was no longer entitled to the premium from 23 March 1994 but was entitled only to income support.
2. In the opinion of the Adjudication Officer claimant was not incapable of work.
3. Claimant appealed against the decision to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal. That Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudication Officer and gave as reasons for its decision:-

"There are 2 conflicting medical opinions that of Mr M… and

that of Doctor McG…. The General Practitioner merely certifies

back pain. The Tribunal has to decide on the evidence before it.

The medical evidence is only part of the story. The Tribunal is

entitled to form its own view and as stated in the facts did not

accept the claimant's evidence. It prefers the evidence of Doctor

McG… which equates with the Tribunal's own view. This claimant

is fit for his ordinary work."

4. Claimant sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law in that it, "Made a decision supported by no or insufficient evidence. The evidence appeared to indicate that I should have won this appeal."
5. I arranged an oral hearing at which the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McL…. Claimant did not appear nor was he represented. Mr McL… argued that the Tribunal arrived at its decision after having given due consideration to all the evidence before it. The hearing appeared to have ranged comprehensively over all aspects of the case. The Tribunal recorded that it preferred the evidence of Dr McG… and rejected Mr J…'s own evidence.
6. Mr McL… argued that the Tribunal was entitled to come to the decision to which it came and it was required to reach a decision on the evidence presented to it.
7. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents in the case. I am satisfied that the Tribunal gave the matter due consideration. It considered the evidence, it accepted certain evidence and rejected other evidence which it was entitled to do and it arrived at a decision which was unfavourable to the claimant. Nevertheless I can find no error of law in the proceedings and the application is therefore refused.

(Signed): C.C.G. McNally

COMMISSIONER

2 January 1996