Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[2000] NISSCSC C1/00-01(IB) (26 October 2000)

 


Decision No: C1/00-01(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 4 August 1999 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by myself, by the claimant against a decision dated 4^th August 1999 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Newtownards. The Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against an Adjudication Officer's decision to the effect that the claimant could not be treated as incapable of work from and including 12^th April 1999 and was therefore not entitled to Incapacity Benefit. In essence the decision and the subsequent appeal concerned the All Work Test.
2. I held a hearing of the appeal which was attended by the claimant and by his representative Ms Simpson of the Citizens Advice Bureau and by Mr McAvoy of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit representing the Adjudication Officer who is now known as the decision maker. I am obliged to both representatives for their assistance.
3. The claimant's initial grounds of appeal were set out in a letter dated 21^st December 1999 and the grounds were amplified in letters dated 13^th March 2000 and 30 August 2000. The observations of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit were set out in letters dated 12^th May 2000 and 30^th August 2000. Both parties expanded the grounds at the hearing.
4. The claimant's initial grounds of appeal had been that the Tribunal had failed to make sufficient findings of fact on the key questions at issue so as to enable it properly to come to a decision. In the letter of 13^th March 2000 this ground was amplified to state that the decision was not a proper one in light of the claimant's General Practitioner's letter which stated that his condition was severe and debilitating. The claimant did not feel that the Tribunal had considered the restrictions in his bending and in his rising from a chair. He was also distressed to find that the Tribunal considered that he overstated his needs.
5. The Decision Making and Appeals Unit in its letter of 12^th May 2000 submitted that adequate findings of fact had been made and therefore did not agree with this ground but considered that the reasons for the decision were inadequate to explain the decision and supported the appeal on that ground. In particular it submitted that it was not apparent why the Tribunal had rejected the evidence presented in relation to rising from sitting and bending and kneeling while, it submitted, at the same time at least partially accepting the claimant's evidence in relation to all the other disputed activities. Unsurprisingly in the letter of 30^th August 2000 Ms Simpson also adopted this ground and stated that in her view the Tribunal should have given reasons for its decision on each descriptor at issue.
6. I am in agreement with Mr McAvoy that there were adequate findings of fact in this case and that there was no error in that respect. The Tribunal has clearly stated its findings of fact as follows: -

"Claimant is a 56 year old man who suffers from back pain and psoriasis.…

He cannot walk 400 metres without suffering severe discomfort. He can only climb stairs one step at a time. He cannot sit comfortably for more than one hour without having to stand up. He cannot stand for more than 30 minutes. Otherwise he is unrestricted to any relevant degree in relation to the remaining

physical descriptors."

7. The "score sheet" was also attached to the decision and contained findings of fact on various descriptors which were in dispute. Missing from this score sheet was a finding on the disputed activity of "rising from sitting". I would have much preferred a finding to be made on this but I do accept Mr McAvoy's contention that the general finding of fact as to the lack of restriction to any relevant degree in relation to the remaining physical descriptors is adequate to cover this activity.
8. It was on the basis of adequacy of reasons that Mr McAvoy supported the appeal. As its reasons for decision the Tribunal has stated as follows:-

"We accept that claimant's back condition may cause some restrictions in terms of the disputed physical descriptors. We accept that they are more serious than assessed by the Medical Officer (MO) who examined claimant on 11.3.99. However we are satisfied that there may well be an element of overstating of his case. During the course of his typical day, as described to the Medical Officer claimant indicated that he goes for drives in his car, he sits for meals, to watch television and do crosswords. He confirmed that he can look after all his personal needs. Examination was almost entirely normal and any restriction was regarded by the Medical Officer as resulting from claimant's "grossly affected and inconsistent" performance. As indicated above we would disagree with the Adjudication Officer as outlined in the "Summary" as we feel that claimant does suffer from a degree of back pain. This has been confirmed by his General Practitioner in the report of 22.2.99."

9. Mr McAvoy was of the view that the Tribunal had partially accepted the claimant's evidence and that as a result of this the claimant was left at a loss as to why the remainder of his evidence was not accepted.
10. Ihave to decide whether the reasons for the decision adequately explain it to a reasonable person reading it. It is, in my view, clear that the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant was exaggerating his restrictions but considered that the Medical Officer had under-assessed them. It is also abundantly clear that in that situation the Tribunal was applying its own judgment as it was entitled to do. So doing it has made findings on the various descriptors. It is abundantly clear that it has taken into consideration all of the evidence in the case and reached its own assessment on that evidence. This again it was entitled to do.
11. Mr McAvoy and indeed Ms Simpson are correct in that the Tribunal has not given reasons for its findings on each descriptor. It has, however, given general reasons for its findings on the descriptor related to the history given to the Medical Officer, the claimant's ability to look after his personal needs, the normal examination and the Medical Officer's views on the claimant's restrictions. It has also given general reasons for the points award which it did make i.e. that the claimant does suffer from a degree of back pain as confirmed by his General Practitioner.
12. The Tribunal did not accept the claimant's assessment of his condition in any of the disputed descriptors. It has clearly indicated it considered he overstated his case. Equally it has obviously considered that the Examining Doctor was somewhat harsh in his assessment in relation to the disputed descriptors. It has clearly found that the claimant had a back problem basing this on his General Practitioner's report and it has endeavoured to assess the restrictions coming from that problem. Its reasons for that assessment made are clearly set out. They include round examination findings, activities carried out and the General Practitioner's report and its view of the claimant's evidence.
13. The decision is clear to any reasonable person reading it and the reasons for it are also clear.
14. The legal requirement is that a Tribunal give adequate reasons for its decision. Whether or not reasons are adequately stated is to be judged in the context of the overall decision including the findings and evidence. This decision is clearly based on the findings and the reasons for the findings are, in my view, clear. The Tribunal has exercised its own judgment based on its view of the evidence, the normal clinical findings, the fact the claimant has a back problem and its view that he exaggerated his limitations. There is no specific legal requirement for a Tribunal to give reasons for the selection of a particular descriptor though in certain cases this may be necessary to explain the decision adequately. It does not appear to me to be necessary in this case. The reasons given appear to me to explain adequately the decision made by the Tribunal and the Tribunal must be permitted to exercise its judgment in the selection of descriptors other than those chosen by the Decision Maker, Medical Officer or the claimant where it considers (as was the case here) that the true fact situation is not reflected in those choices.
15. As the former Chief Commissioner stated in C1/96(IB) Tribunals are not necessarily required to record their reasons for reaching their relevant findings of fact. All they are required to do is to give reasons so as to adequately explain the decision. In my view that was done in this case.
16. As the reasons appear to me to explain how the decision has been reached, as findings of fact appear adequate to found the decision and are sustainable on the evidence and as I am unable to ascertain any other error in the decision I dismiss the appeal in this case.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

26 October 2000