[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1994] NISSCSC C6-94(IVB) (10 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/C6-94(IVB).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC C6-94(IVB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1994] NISSCSC C6-94(IVB) (10 June 1994)

 


Decision No: C6/94(IVB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INVALIDITY BENEFIT Application by the claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 19 October 1993 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which held that invalidity benefit was not payable to the claimant from 15 July 1993 to 21 October 1993. The Tribunal recorded reasons for its decision as:-

"Tribunal agree with conclusion of examining medical officer on

23 6 93 that claimant is capable of sedentary type work."

2. I arranged an oral hearing of the application at which claimant was represented by Mr O.... The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.
3. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a 51 year old farmer who claimed and received sickness benefit followed by invalidity benefit from March 1992 as he was suffering from post myocardial infarction.
4. In July 1992 claimant was considered incapable of work without a medical examination. He was medically examined on 23 June 1993 at which time the Medical Officer considered him capable of suitable alternative work but not capable of his old occupation as a farmer. The Adjudication Officer on the strength of that one medical report withdrew his invalidity benefit.
5. Claimant appealed to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal and that Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudication Officer for the reasons which I have given above, namely that they agreed with the conclusion of the Medical Officer.
6. Mr O... at the hearing before me argued that there was no or inadequate findings of fact and drew attention to what the Tribunal recorded as findings of fact matters which were not in dispute, namely that at that time he was a 50 year old farmer who became unfit on 30 March 1992 and was found capable of alternative work on 23 June 1993. Mr O... said that that bore no relationship whatever to the findings which would be necessary to enable a Tribunal to base a conclusion that claimant was fit for work. He also argued that the Tribunal failed to record a letter from a Dr H… of September 1993 which was handed in to the Tribunal and it also failed to adequately record its decision but it merely recorded a conclusion.
7. Mr McAvoy in a written submission before the hearing wrote as follows:-

"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Mr W...'s application

for leave to appeal which is based upon 3 grounds.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the first ground which is that

the Tribunal failed to make adequate findings of fact. The only such

findings were -

"50 year old farmer

Unfit 30 September 1992

23 June 1993 found capable of alternative work"

Since the new medical report form MR6 includes a significant

functional assessment, for instance, on Mr W...'s "carrying/

lifting" ability on which he scored "reduced function", some

finding by the Tribunal on this aspect of the evidence would

seem desirable (see below also).

The second ground is that the Tribunal failed to record, as evidence,

the letter from Dr H..., handed in at the hearing. Whilst it is

again desirable that this be recorded, I would not consider such an

omission, of itself, to be necessarily fatal to the validity of the

decision, where there is no suggestion that the Tribunal actually

neglected to take account of it.

The third point concerns the Tribunal's failure to give adequate

reasons for the decision. It has been said by Commissioners, both

in Northern Ireland and GB, that the task of Tribunals is not to

be made an intolerable burden when recording reasons for their

decisions. In this case I feel the reason, though scant, is

adequate.

This is the first case on which I have been invited to comment,

concerning a "not incapable" decision based on a single medical

report. When this practice was introduced last year it was intended

that although based on only one report, the report would be in a

new improved format of more evidential weight than the previous

reports - hence the new style of report form MR6 completed by

Dr K... on 23 June 1993.

An important feature of that report is part 2 of Section B which

contains 20 function boxes. The reporting doctor is required to

score each function 1, 2 or 3 meaning respectively full function,

reduced function and nil function. In this case 5 of the boxes

have not been scored, and furthermore there is no meaningful

explanation at part 3 of those "reduced functions" scored at part

2. These oversights ought to have been resolved with Dr K...

by the AO before reaching a decision in the first place.

The Commissioner may wish to consider whether, in these

circumstances, the MR6 dated 23 June 1993 was sufficiently strong

evidence on which to found a disallowance."

8. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the documents in this case. The only evidence upon which the Adjudication Officer based his finding was the incomplete medical report. This is a new form of report and even the Adjudication Officer's representative is sceptical of its efficiency. It is quite clear that to withdraw someone's benefit more than this inadequate report would be needed and I think that this type of withdrawal of a benefit on one medical alone is something which must be carefully looked at because the report would need to be a very strong one to counteract all the medical and other evidence given by the claimant. The fact that a claimant can be disallowed benefit on one report will create endless problems unless the report is properly and adequately completed and tailored to suit the individual circumstances of a claimant which at present it does not appear to do. It is quite clear in this case that that is not so.
9. I am also satisfied that the Tribunal failed to make any relevant findings of fact upon which to base a decision. It also failed to properly record its decision. Although the Adjudication Officer considers it scant but adequate, I am quite satisfied that in this particular case it was completely inadequate.
10. At the hearing I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as the appeal. For the reasons set out above I allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. The Adjudication Officer has urged me to give the decision which the Tribunal should have given and I am satisfied that on the evidence before the Adjudication Officer it was improper to withdraw the allowance and therefore I am satisfied that claimant is entitled to invalidity benefit for the period from 15 July 1993 to 21 October 1993, both dates inclusive.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

10 June 1994