Application No: A29/93(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
Ballymoney Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 26 April 1993

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 he was not entitled to invalidity benefit from 8 January 1993 to 1 March 1993.  I held an oral hearing at which claimant appeared but was not represented and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.  For the reasons which appear below I refuse leave to appeal.

2.	Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a 28 year old farmer who has been in receipt of sickness benefit from August 1991 followed by invalidity benefit as the result of Pilonidal sinus and back pain.  Medical Officers were satisfied that he was incapable of work in September 1991 and again in January 1992.  He was examined by Medical Officers on behalf of the Department in April and in June 1992, and both found him capable of his usual occupation.  He was examined by a Consultant Surgeon in September 1992 who also found him capable of his usual occupation and again examined by a Consultant Psychiatrist in September 1992 who also found him capable of his usual occupation.

3.	As a result of those decisions the Adjudication Officer refused him further benefit and the Social Security Appeal Tribunal to which he appealed considered that there was overwhelming medical evidence in the shape of 4 medical reports expressing the opinion that he was capable of his usual occupation.

4.	In his application for leave to appeal the claimant submitted that there was not sufficient medical evidence to support the conclusion of the Tribunal.  He said he felt it should have been adjourned and further reports sought from his own doctor and from a Consultant because he said they kept telling him that he was unfit for work.  Claimant said he still suffered severe pain in his back.

5.	At the hearing there was also some discussion as to his entitlement to invalidity benefit subsequent to the dates before me and claimant was advised to seek assistance from the local office.

6.	As far as the present application is concerned I have considered all the documents in this case and I have considered the grounds of appeal.  I am satisfied that there was not only sufficient, but as the Tribunal said overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant was capable of his usual occupation and that no point of law was raised by the claimant in his application for leave to appeal, and the application is therefore refused.

	(Signed):  C C G McNally

	COMMISSIONER

	20 April 1994