Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1999] NISSCSC C6/99(IB) (10 January 2000)

 


Decision No: C6/99(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCAPACITY BENEFIT Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 8 September 1998 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by the Tribunal Chairman, against a decision dated 8 September 1998 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against a decision of an Adjudication Officer dated 25 June 1998. The Adjudication Officer's decision reviewed an earlier decision by which claimant had been awarded Invalidity Benefit (this later became Incapacity Benefit). The Tribunal decided that from and including 25 June 1998, the claimant was not entitled to Incapacity Benefit.
2. The claimant sought leave to appeal on OSSC1 (NI) form dated 26 October 1998. Her grounds of appeal were as follows:-

"Medical papers and doctor's letters not considered. I don't

feel my rep got enough to put my case strongly enough. Since

then I have attended EPIC and their Counsellor says I should

have at least 13 points minimum."

3. With the OSSC1 (NI) form were included two letters:-

(i) dated 20 March 1995 (unsigned but appearing to be from Dr L…)

(ii) dated 13 August 1997.

4. In subsequent correspondence the claimant stated that at the hearing in Cleaver House (the Tribunal venue) her medical records were just glanced over and her representative did not get a single chance to speak. She stated that she did not think that she received a fair hearing.
5. The claimant had requested a hearing of the appeal but having considered the papers I consider that I can decide the matter without such hearing. I arranged for the claimant to be notified of my decision in relation to the request for a hearing and gave her an opportunity to set out her case in full in writing. No reply was received.
6. By letter of 3 September 1999 Central Adjudication Services, representing the Adjudication Officer, commented on the grounds of appeal. Those comments were as follows:-

"It is unclear which medical papers and doctor's letters [the

claimant] submits the tribunal failed to consider. If [the

claimant] is referring to the doctor's letters dated 20.3.1995

(unsigned) and 13.8.1997 respectively, I submit there is no

indication in the record of proceedings that she handed these

letters in to the tribunal. In any case, the evidence contained

within these letters appears to add nothing to [the claimant's]

case. The evidence presented to the tribunal included medical

certificates providing a statement of diagnoses and a factual

report from her General Practitioner, a self-assessment of her

condition (form IB50) and a Medical Support Services report.

The tribunal also had the opportunity to see and hear from [the

claimant] and therefore I submit there was sufficient evidence on

which to determine the case.

While [the claimant] may feel her representative did not argue her

case forcibly enough I submit this would not constitute an error in

law on the tribunal's behalf. I further submit that it seems clear

from the record of proceedings, findings and reasons that the

tribunal was extremely diligent in exercise of its inquisitorial

role and that [the claimant] was given ample opportunity to give

evidence as to her condition.

For the reasons above I submit I can identify no error in law and

therefore oppose this appeal."

7. I afforded the claimant an opportunity to make further comment on the above letter from Central Adjudication Services but no comment was received.
8. Like Central Adjudication Services, I am unable to agree with the claimant's statements that her representative did not get a chance to speak and that she did not get a fair hearing by the Tribunal. The Tribunal record does indicate very thorough inquiry into the claimant's functional limitations in connection with the All Work Test and does also indicate that the claimant's representative did make representation to the Tribunal. It appears to me quite apparent that the claimant did get a fair hearing and that her situation was fully explored at that hearing. She feels some dissatisfaction with her representative but that is not a matter of error on the Tribunal's part. There has been no failure of the Tribunal's inquisitorial role. Adequate inquiry has been made by the Tribunal.
9. As regards the medical papers and doctors' letters which the claimant states were not considered, I agree with Central Adjudication Services that it is difficult to determine which records are being referred to by the claimant though it does seem from the OSSC1 (NI) form that these are the doctors' letters mentioned by Central Adjudication Services. Even assuming these had been handed in, however, I agree with Central Adjudication Services that the letters add nothing to the claimant's case. Indeed much of her case was based on a deterioration post 31 December 1997 and neither of the letters could have related to that. In addition neither of the letters mentions incontinence as a problem and this was one of the main arguments in the claimant's case. The letters do mention depression and the Tribunal has obviously accepted depression as an illness but neither letter mentions any functional limitations arising therefrom apart from expressing the view that the claimant is unfit for (a) work and (b) jury service. Neither adds anything to the IB50 form which the Tribunal has considered.
10. It appears, however, from the OSSC1 (NI) form that the claimant considers her representative did not forward enough evidence to the Tribunal and that the missing evidence may include the two above mentioned doctors' letters. There is no error of law in the Tribunal not considering evidence which was not put before it.
11. Even if these letters had been before the Tribunal, I can find no error. I do not consider that the Tribunal has erred in law in not specifically commenting on them. The letters pre-date quite considerably the period which the Tribunal had to consider and in addition add nothing to the evidence which it is quite clear was considered. Comment on them was not necessary to explain the Tribunal's decision.
12. I am unable to find any error in the Tribunal's decision either in the manner alleged by the claimant or in any other way. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): M F Brown


COMMISSIONER



10 January 2000