[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 >> [1995] NISSCSC A19-94(IVB) (9 February 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1995/A19-94(IVB).html Cite as: [1995] NISSCSC A19-94(IVB)

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

[1995] NISSCSC A19-94(IVB) (9 February 1995)

 


Application No: A19/94(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 above-named claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Strabane Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 29 June 1994 DETERMINATION 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 upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that invalidity benefit was not payable from 4 August 1993 to 23 November 1993; and also from and including 24 November 1993.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant appeared but was not represented and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.
3. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is now a 53 year old joiner who became unfit for work in June 1993 by reason of a duodenal ulcer. He was examined by a Medical Officer of the Department on 3 August 1993 who expressed the opinion that he was capable of his usual occupation and the Adjudication Officer disallowed his claim from 4 August 1993.
4. Claimant appealed to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal and that Tribunal adjourned and arranged to have the claimant examined by Mr P… who was asked to comment on claimant's capacity for his usual occupation as a joiner.
5. The Tribunal having received the report from Mr P... reconvened and heard submissions from the Adjudication Officer, although the claimant himself did not attend. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the grounds that claimant had not proved on the balance of probability that he was incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disability.
6. Claimant sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in law in that "I still suffer the pain and loss of sleep that caused me to seek medical help in the first instance and that this may not have been taken into account properly at the appeal tribunal." At the hearing before me claimant argued again that the Tribunal did not take into account his complaints, he said that he could not sleep at night and that was why he could not work. His hiatus hernia gave him a headache, gave him diarrhoea, that he was on medication. His doctor changed his medication quite frequently and he argued that because he could not sleep at night he was too tired to work during the day and also his headaches and diarrhoea prevented him from working.
7. Mr McAvoy said that the Tribunal considered the medical report from Mr P... and in the light of that report had no option but to uphold the decision of the Adjudication Officer.
8. I have considered all that has been said and I have considered all the evidence, including the evidence of the report of Mr P.... In his report Mr P..., a Consultant Surgeon, says:-

"In summary, therefore, Mr S...has a hiatus hernia and from his symptomatology would appear to have reflux of acid which he experiences but there is no evidence of any ulcers, either in 1989 or at the present moment. Reflux by itself or due to hiatus hernia in this day and age can be well controlled with drugs and advice regarding position. The condition he has should not stop him undertaking his duties. I would have liked to have had more objective evidence of the number of times reflux occurs by doing PH studies but this was not to be because Mr S...would not undergo the test. So one has got to rely on the subjective evidence and the objective evidence of the endoscopy. The conclusion is that Mr S...has a hiatus hernia with at the present moment no evidence of any inflammation in the gullet which suggests that the drugs that he is on are controlling it quite well. He certainly has no evidence of either gastric or a duodenal ulcer. He should in my opinion with satisfactory medical treatment be able to undertake the duties that he performs as a joiner."

In the light of the medical evidence which was fully taken into account by the Tribunal I am satisfied that there is no error of law in the Tribunal's findings. Any other result would have been perverse.

9. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

9 February 1995