Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[2000] NISSCSC C15/00-01(IB) (11 December 2000)

 


Decision No: C15/00-01(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCAPACITY BENEFIT
Appeal to a Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision

dated 12 January 2000

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an appeal by the claimant, leave having been granted by myself, against a decision dated 12^th January 2000 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Omagh. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against a decision by the Department on 1^st October 1999 to the effect that an earlier decision finding the claimant incapable of work and awarding benefit was superseded and that the claimant was not incapable of work and therefore not entitled to Incapacity Benefit from and including 1^st October 1999.
2. The claimant appealed to me, her grounds of appeal being as follows: -

1. That she could not understand why the Tribunal had not awarded her points in connection with sitting, rising from sitting, lifting and carrying, reaching, bending and kneeling and vision. She stated that in all of these she had claimed that she had difficulties.

2. That the Tribunal had not mentioned the letter from her general practitioner which had been before the Tribunal.

3. The Department made observations on the matter by letter dated 31^st August 2000 from Mr Toner of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit. Mr Toner opposed the appeal stating that it was clear from the decision that the Tribunal took account of all the evidence and in fact had not adopted the report of the Medical Support Services doctor. Mr Toner also submitted that a person could have difficulties on the All Work Test yet fail to attract a score on any particular activity.
4. He submitted that the claimant did not identify the point of law on which the Tribunal had erred but was merely restating arguments raised before and rejected by the Tribunal. He also submitted that the Tribunal had considered the letter dated 11^th January 2000 from the claimant's general practitioner, that letter being recorded under the heading of documents considered and that the Tribunal gave consideration to all the evidence and had specifically so recorded.
5. I am in agreement with Mr Toner that there is no error in relation to the letter dated 11^th January 2000 from the claimant's general practitioner. That letter is clearly amongst the documents which the Tribunal considered and, while the letter is broadly supportive of the claimant, it is somewhat unspecific as regards the All Work Test which was the crucial factor in this case. I can therefore see no error in the Tribunal's not referring in detail to it.
6. The claimant's first ground of complaint, however, does indicate that she does not understand why the Tribunal awarded her points in some of the stated activities but not in others. While the awarding of points is completely a matter for the Tribunal where, as here, there is a conflict of crucial evidence the Tribunal does not satisfactorily explain its conclusions if there is no assessment of crucial evidence. In this case had the claimant's evidence been accepted in full she would have satisfied the requirements. It was not and the matter of the assessment of that evidence is solely for the Tribunal. The Tribunal however, has given no explanation as to why some at least of the claimant's evidence was rejected. A reasonable person reading the decision would not be clear as to why the claimant's evidence was not considered acceptable. I would emphasize that the acceptability or otherwise of the evidence is completely a matter for the Tribunal and that lengthy reasoning is not required. However sufficient indication of why this crucial evidence was rejected was necessary. To give a hypothetical example, this could be because while the Tribunal accepted some parts of a claimant's evidence as credible, in light of the clinical findings it considered the claimant over-stated her limitations in relation to certain other activities and it had scored her accordingly.
7. It is because there is no assessment of the claimant's crucial evidence that I set aside the decision in this case as being in error of law.
8. I would wish to add that I agree with Mr Toner that the mere fact that someone is acknowledged to have problems in connection with a particular activity does not mean that those problems will be of such an extent as to satisfy the All Work Test. It will all depend on the degree of the difficulties which the Tribunal accepts.
9. Neither does the award of points on one activity mean that points must automatically be awarded on another. There is statutory provision to that effect.
10. As I do not consider that this is a case where I can give the decision on which the Tribunal should have given, I remit the matter to a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal which should rehear it and should give a reasoned assessment of crucial evidence if there is a conflict of such evidence.

(Signed): M F BROWN

COMMISSIONER

11 DECEMBER 2000