Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[2000] NISSCSC C6/00-01(IB) (28 November 2000)

 


Decision No: C6/00-01(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 29 October 1999 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by the Chairman, by the Department against a decision dated 29^th October 1999 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Newry. That Tribunal had allowed the claimant's appeal against an earlier decision of an Adjudication Officer which had reviewed the claimant's earlier award of Incapacity Benefit and decided that she was, from and including 5^th July 1999, capable of work and not entitled to Incapacity Benefit. The issue before me in relation to the appeal was the manner in which the Tribunal had dealt with activity 14 of the test which has become known as the All Work Test. No other issue is apparent to me.
2. The Department set out its grounds of appeal in a letter dated 9^th May 2000 from Mr Fletcher of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit. The claimant and her representative were given an opportunity to make written observations on this matter but did not do so. A hearing of the appeal was not requested and having perused the papers I am satisfied that I can determine the matter without such a hearing. The Tribunal held a hearing.
3. The grounds of appeal set out in the said letter were that the task for the Tribunal in this case was to decide whether bouts of hypoglaecemia were seizures similar to epileptic seizures. This, in Mr Fletcher's submission entailed the Tribunal examining the characteristics of such a seizure as against the characteristics of an epileptic seizure as defined in C30/98(IB), paragraph 14. Mr Fletcher submitted that following C3/99(IB) this must include consideration of the origin of the seizure.
4. Mr Fletcher further submitted that under the new arrangements as to the constitution of tribunals dealing with All Work Test cases the Tribunal must consist of a legally qualified and a medically qualified member, the new Tribunal therefore having a medical competence which its predecessor did not. In those circumstances, Mr Fletcher submitted, that although the new tribunals were competent to judge for themselves whether a seizure had occurred and whether it was similar to epilepsy, in view of C30/98(IB) it was necessary to record in the reasons that conscious consideration had been given to the criteria therein. Mr Fletcher submitted that there was no need for this to be extensive or detailed but it should be sufficient to state the conclusion on each of the three criteria. He submitted however that it was not sufficient to remain silent on the point just because a doctor was a member of the panel.
5. Mr Fletcher further submitted that as there was no indication in either the record of proceedings or the reasons for the decision that the Tribunal adopted such an approach or the factual basis upon which it concluded that the seizures were similar to epileptic seizures, the reasons were inadequate to meet the requirements of section 23(3A) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
6. Both the decisions referred to by Mr Fletcher are decisions of my own.
7. I agree with Mr Fletcher that paragraph 14 of decision C30/98(IB) made it clear that a Tribunal must examine the characteristics of the seizure against the characteristics of an epileptic seizure and then determine whether it was similar or not. I also agree that this must include consideration of the origin of the seizure, this being part of the seizure itself.
8. I also agree with Mr Fletcher that the Tribunal in this case has not specifically recorded that it applied the approach set out in C30/98(IB) and C3/99(IB). Provided, however, it is apparent that the Tribunal has followed the relevant approach, it will not necessarily be in error of law for not having specifically so recorded.
9. In decision C3/99(IB) it was apparent that the Tribunal had examined the nature of the episodes of involuntary lost or altered consciousness and had reached a conclusion which was reasonable on the evidence.
10. As Mr Fletcher stated, in this case, the Tribunal had a medical member who could, presumably, be trusted to be aware of the likely effects of hypoglaecemia.
11. In any event it is for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the claimant suffers from epileptic or similar seizures. If the claimant does so the Tribunal then has to determine what, if any, descriptor within that activity is relevant.
12. The Tribunal in this case has clearly concluded that the claimant fell within that activity. It has given no indication of the specific seizure characteristics considered in reaching this conclusion.
13. I can similarly find no expressed conclusion on the further question raised by the statutory provisions i.e. whether the episodes of lost or altered consciousness were involuntary. Again, however, from its attribution of descriptor 14(e) it is apparent that the Tribunal concluded that they were.
14. It is also apparent that it concluded that there were episodes of lost or altered consciousness.
15. It appears, therefore, that the Tribunal did reach the relevant conclusions i.e. that the claimant suffered epileptic or similar seizures, that she suffered lost or altered consciousness as a result and that the lost or altered consciousness was involuntary.
16. The Tribunal has specifically accepted the evidence of the claimant's General Practitioner that her diabetic control is poor and that she is insulin dependent. It has also accepted the evidence of the appellant's husband both of which indicate that the episodes of lost or altered consciousness are involuntary.
17. The decision is not well recorded but, when read against the evidential background, it does appear to me that the reasoning is (though only just) adequate to explain the decision.
18. There may well be other cases where the evidence is such that more detailed investigation and a more structured reasoning will be necessary and as a matter of good practice it would be better if tribunals did specifically record that they have taken into account the characteristics set out in C30/98(IB) and C3/99(IB). However, in this case, I do consider that the reasoning was, adequate to explain the decision and that is the only statutory requirement.
19. This decision is not authority for any proposition that a hypoglaecemia attack will necessarily lead to an involuntary episode of lost or altered consciousness or that any such episode will necessarily be similar in nature to an epileptic seizure. That is a matter for the Tribunal to consider in each situation. It must be permitted to exercise its judgment and obviously the evidential background and the Tribunal's assessment of that evidence will be extremely relevant.
20. In this particular case, however, I dismiss the appeal.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

28 November 2000