Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1996] NISSCSC C30/96(DLA) (18 June 1996)

 


Decision No: C30/96(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

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

Dungannon Disability Appeal Tribunal

dated 10 March 1994

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision a Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT) which upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that claimant was not entitled to either component of disability living allowance.
2. The decision of the Adjudication Officer was made on 21 January 1993. The claimant requested a review. The Adjudication Officer recorded that he reviewed the decision but did not revise it on 24 July 1993. Claimant then appealed to a DAT which sat on 10 March 1994, having previously been adjourned to enable the Tribunal staff to obtain a report on claimant's psychiatric condition from a Consultant at St Luke's Hospital, Armagh.
3. Upon receipt of the decision of the DAT claimant on 11 April 1994 wrote a letter seeking leave to appeal to the Commissioner. For reasons which I find difficult to understand the request was not put to the Chairman of the DAT until October 1995 who refused the application.
4. However, I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant was represented by Mr H… and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw.
5. Mr H... argued that the claimant was a schizophrenic and his condition made it difficult for him to convey the full extent of his problems and that this was borne out by the report from Dr M... the Consultant Psychiatrist. Mr H... criticised the Tribunal for making a decision relating to the care component on the basis that claimant had attended a basic cookery course. How that came about was that claimant attended a day hospital and it was impossible to say that because there was that course going on in the day hospital in 1984 which included a basic cooking course and Mr H... said that the Tribunal was wrong in assuming from that, that claimant could cook. Mr H... also drew attention to the fact that claimant got all his meals out and he did not cook any meals but that he had said "I can make a cup of tea".
6. Mr Shaw said that although Dr B... confirmed that the applicant was able to use taps and a cooker, nevertheless the Tribunal did not consider whether a schizophrenic, who would always be able to do that, was also able to plan a main meal.
7. I have considered all that has been said and I have considered the findings and reasons given by the Tribunal. In its findings relating to the mobility component the Tribunal found:-

"... The appellant suffers from non specific chest pain and duodenal

ulceration. Doctor M..., Consultant Psychiatrist, has also

diagnosed paraphrenia. ..."

and in the reasons for its decision said:-

"... We note that the appellant also complaints of having chest

pains. However, there is nothing in the medical evidence to

substantiate appellant's complaints in this regard. ..."

I find this very difficult to understand where in its findings it says that the appellant suffers from chest pains and in the reasons for its decision clearly indicates that it does not accept that he suffers from chest pains. Nevertheless Dr M... the Consultant Psychiatrist he recorded that his chest pains and indigestion has been investigated at Daisy Hill Hospital and he has been advised that operations would be inappropriate.

8. I think this is a very borderline case. The Tribunal relied upon the fact that some 12 years ago he attended what it considered to be a basic cookery class but it was nothing more than part of a day hospital activity and the fact that the Tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence of chest pains on the groiund that there was no medical evidence to support it when in fact there was, I am satisfied that the Tribunal did err.
9. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and both parties having consented I treated the application as the appeal. For the reasons set out above I allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Disability Appeal Tribunal and refer the matter back to be reheard by a differently constituted Disability Appeal Tribunal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

18 June 1996