Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1998] NISSCSC C2/98(II) (18 December 2000)

 


Decision No: C2/98(II)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 DISABLEMENT BENEFIT
Appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 30 September 1997 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the claimant, leave having been granted by the Chairman, against a decision dated 30^th September 1997 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal in relation to three matters, making three separate decisions. Only one of those decisions was before me but one of the other the decisions given by the Tribunal and which was upheld by the Chief Commissioner for Northern Ireland in Decision C1/98(II) was relevant to this case.
2. The claimant had claimed Industrial Disablement Benefit on the basis of two incidents which he alleged constituted industrial accidents. One incident took place on 4^th October 1988 and it was decided by the Tribunal which dealt with that case and subsequently upheld by the Chief Commissioner in C1/98(II) that the incident on 4^th October 1988 was not an industrial accident within the meaning of section 42(6) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The Tribunal decision which was before me related to the incident on 22^nd June 1990. The decision was to the effect that the incident which occurred on 22^nd June 1990 did not constitute an industrial accident within the meaning of the said section 42(6).
3. The instant Tribunal gave as part of the reasons for the decision that it accepted that the claimant had suffered a mental breakdown on 22^nd June 1990 but that the claimant could not establish that this was the result of events on that particular day.
4. In its decision the Tribunal gave considerable weight to the claimant's own evidence that he had suffered stress over a period of time prior to the incident on 4^th October 1988 but that following that incident things had worsened from the view point of the level of stress. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the claimant's mental breakdown appeared to result from a general deterioration in the claimant's condition over a period of time and stated that it was unable to identify any precise moment (other than the incident on 4^th October 1988 which had already been found not to be an industrial accident) when there was a discernible physiological change for the worse in the claimant nor to identify a particular incident which occasioned the deterioration. It therefore disallowed the appeal.
5. The Tribunal's conclusions on this matter were in accordance with the claimant's own evidence that he had been able to continue at work until 22^nd June 1990 and that there had been no incident at work on that date, he had simply "cracked" while driving to working.
6. The claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision on the incident on 22^nd June 1990 on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in law in finding that the claimant was not acting in the course of his employment when the accident occurred on 4^th October 1988 and had failed to give adequate weight to case law cited by the claimant in interpreting the term "in the course of his employment". In this connection it was submitted that CI/14111/1996 was relevant to the facts and circumstances in question.
7. A further ground of appeal was that the Tribunal had erred in law in finding that the claimant's condition was brought about by a process as distinct from an accident. In this connection it was submitted that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate weight to the impacts of the events on 4^th October 1988 on the claimant's mental health. It was submitted that while prior to that the claimant had had threats upon his life, the events of 4^th October 1988 amounted to an actual attempt on his life, a colleague who was to give him a lift having been killed in a terrorist outrage.
8. Observations were made by the Department and further comment was made by the Law Centre (NI) representing the claimant. Eventually, however, the Law Centre decided not to appeal the Chief Commissioner's decision in C1/98(II) because of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds, judgment in which case was given on the 11^th May 2000 and which decided that to satisfy the Great Britain equivalent of section 94(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 there had to be an identifiable accident. Section 94(1) provides as follows:-

"Industrial injuries benefit shall be payable where an employed earner suffers personal injury caused after 4^th July 1948 by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, being employed earners employment."

9. The Law Centre revised its submissions to concede that the Tribunal had considered whether or not there was any identifiable accident causing the claimant's breakdown, had found that the accident which occurred on 4^th October 1988 did not occur in the course of the claimant's employment and had decided that the claimant's mental breakdown resulted from a deterioration in his condition over a period of time which was a finding which the Tribunal was entitled to make on the evidence before it.
10. The Law Centre conceded that the Tribunals decision was not erroneous in point of law.
11. Section 42(6) of the said Act provides that for purposes of that section (which deals with whether or not a claimant has had an industrial accident for purposes of a claim for industrial injuries benefit) an accident whereby a claimant suffers personal injuries shall be deemed, in relation to him, to be an industrial accident if: -

(a) it arises out of and in the course of his employment;

(b) that employment is employed earner's employment for the purposes of Part V of the Contributions and Benefits Act.

12. The Law Centre came off record as the claimant's representative and the claimant represented himself at the hearing before me. That hearing was attended by Mrs Gunning representing the Department.
13. At the hearing the claimant confirmed that he was happy to proceed without representation and also confirmed that he attributed all of the deterioration in his mental health to the very distressing incident on the 4^th October 1988. He confirmed that nothing particular happened on the 22^nd June 1990 and described himself as having "just cracked". His main contention before me was that the incident on 4^th October 1988 in which his colleague had been killed should have been found to be an industrial accident.
14. That matter already stands decided and is outside my jurisdiction. That being so, I can find no error in the Tribunals decision and I am in agreement with the Law Centre that the Tribunal was entitled to its conclusion that, the accident on 4^th October 1988 being excluded as not being an industrial accident, there was no other precise moment when there was a discernible physiological change for the worse nor any particular incident which occasioned the deterioration in the claimant's health.
15. The Tribunal has dealt fully with the claimant's contentions and its reasons are clear and admirably well recorded in this complex area of the law.
16. While therefore I feel very considerable sympathy for the claimant in this case I am unable to find that the Tribunal erred in law either as alleged by the claimant or in any other way and I therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): M F BROWN

COMMISSIONER

18 DECEMBER 2000