Decision No: C5/95(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
Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 15 May 1994

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 claimant was not entitled to invalidity benefit from 7 January 1993 to 28 July 1993.  

2.	I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant was represented by Mr B.. and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr McAvoy.  At that hearing I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as an appeal.

3.	Briefly the facts are that the claimant, a 45 year old labourer, claimed sickness benefit from January 1991 followed by invalidity benefit from June 1991.  His main complaints were chest pains and vertigo.

4.	Claimant was examined by two Medical Officers on behalf of the Department in September and October 1992 and both were of the opinion he was capable of some work, although not capable of his job as a labourer.  He was examined by a Doctor S… W..., a Consultant Cardiologist in November 1992.
5.	After the Adjudication Officer disallowed his claim claimant appealed.  His appeal before a Social Security Appeal Tribunal was adjourned to enable the claimant to obtain from his General Practitioner a report on recent tests carried out at the Royal Victoria Hospital together with such other reports on his condition as appropriate.  But when the Tribunal reconvened some 8 months later no additional medical evidence had been supplied by the claimant.

6.	At the hearing before me Mr B... argued that the Tribunal had erred in law in that it failed to give an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision and the findings of fact upon which it was based and that it made a decision based on insufficient evidence.  He said that there was a lot of medical evidence in the case and not sufficient weight was given to it.  The medication which claimant took made him drowsy and that claimant was still incapable of any work.

7.	Mr McAvoy argued that there was sufficient medical evidence upon which the Tribunal could base its decision.

8.	I have considered all that has been said and I have considered the evidence which was before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal made findings of fact as follows:-

"Claimant has worked as a labourer as a mechanic.  These are heavy
jobs.

Claimant complains of chest pains and vertigo.  These would rule out
such heavy manual work.  His main complaint appears to be chest pains 
and we are persuaded by report of Dr W…, Consultant Cardiologist
that while there may be a moderate probability of underlying coronary
disease, the weight of medical evidence and opinion is that there is
no significant cardiovascular disability.  There is little objective
medical support for the complaint of vertigo.  Taking into account 
his age and experience he is capable of alternative work such as 
doorman or packer."

9.	The Tribunal was persuaded by the report of Dr W... the Consultant Cardiologist.  In that Report Dr W... recorded:-

"On examination he was three stone overweight weighing 15 stone
7lbs.  The cardiac rhythm was sinus and he was normotensive.  There
were no abnormal signs in the cardiovascular or respiratory systems.
CNS examination was normal.  Chest X-Ray showed no definite heart or
lung lesions.

His resting electrocardiogram showed left axis deviation with a 
possible old diaphragmatic infarction.  He underwent Exercise
Thallium Scintigraphy exercising well for 10 minutes before being
limited by leg fatigue.  There were no ECG changes although his
heart rate only rose to 115 beats per minute.  The thallium
scintigram suggested at least a moderate probability of underlying
coronary disease.  I have therefore arranged for him to undergo
diagnostic coronary arteriography in due course.

In the mean time I believe that Mr M... is not fit to continue
his normal occupation but is capable of carrying out the duties
involved in the following occupations;

Checker (electrical, electronic equipment)
doorman, general receptionist, packer (light goods) photocopying
machine operator, radio telephone operator."

10.	Having considered the documents and all that was said in this case and taking into account the Consultant Cardiologist's report I am satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in law, that it made sufficient findings of fact and recorded an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision and that there was sufficient evidence upon which the Tribunal could arrive at the decision it arrived at and that no error of law has been demonstrated.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(Signed):  C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

13 April 1995