[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 A41/95(IS) (9 June 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1995/A41_95(IS).html Cite as: [1995] NISSCSC A41/95(IS)

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

[1995] NISSCSC A41/95(IS) (9 June 1995)

 


A41/95(IS)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCOME SUPPORT Application by the claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 9 June 1995 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal disallowing his appeal against the Adjudication Officer's decision that he was not incapable of work and that he was entitled to income support at the weekly rate of ?65.15 from 2 March 1995.
2. From the record of their proceedings it is clear that the issue before the Appeal Tribunal was whether it had been established that the claimant was not incapable of work. It was acknowledged that, by reason of an injury to his ankle, he was no longer fit for his former employment as a bricklayer; but the Adjudication Officer had decided that he was capable of suitable alternative work, as specified by a Medical Officer who examined him on 30 December 1994. This conclusion was accepted by the Appeal Tribunal who recorded the following "findings of fact" and "reasons for decision".

"Findings of fact

Claimant's regular occupation is a bricklayer. Has claimed benefit

on account of injury to his right ankle. On 30 December 1994

claimant was examined by Medical Officer of the Department who felt

that although claimant was incapable of working as a bricklayer he

is capable of suitable alternative work. No medical evidence has

been presented to us today by or on behalf of the claimant and we

accept the opinion of the Medical Officer (30 December 1994)."

"Reasons for decision

Having considered all the evidence, including -

a. the medical evidence, and

b. the claimant's evidence today.

We feel that claimant could carry out the jobs specified by the

Department as suitable in his case and we accept the opinion of the

Medical Officer who examined claimant on 30 December 1994."

3. In his application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner the claimant stated that he wished to do so:- "on the grounds that the law was not correctly applied to my case in particular regulation 72 [? 12] with regard to my mobility and care difficulties."
4. As it was not clear to me how regulation 72 or 12 of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, (the General Regulations), might affect the application, the claimant's representative was requested to identify the regulation in question and explain its relevance. There has been no reply to this request.
5. I have considered the grounds relied upon by the claimant in this application and have reached the conclusion that they are without substance. As I have indicated, I cannot see the relevance of regulation 72 or 12 of the General Regulations and it occurs to me that the claimant may have intended to refer to paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule to the Regulations. However, if that was indeed the paragraph upon which the claimant meant to rely, it does not in my opinion provide any support for this application. The issue before the Appeal Tribunal was the claimant's capacity for employment, and there was in my view ample evidence to justify them in deciding as they did that he was capable of suitable alternative work. Altogether the conclusion which I have reached is that there are no grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law and I therefore refuse leave to appeal.
6. The claimant requested an oral hearing of this application; but having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward for the request, I am satisfied that a hearing is not required. The request has accordingly been refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER