Decision No: C12/98(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)
(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from the decision of the
Magherafelt Social Security Appeal Tribunal
dated 16 July 1997

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is an appeal, leave having been granted by the Chairman, against a decision dated 16 July 1997 of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Magherafelt.  An oral hearing of this appeal was requested but no reason for the request was given.  I consider that I can determine the appeal without same.

2.	My decision is that the decision of the Tribunal was in error of law and it is set aside.  The matter is remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal which should deal with the claimant's case to the date of hearing or to the date of any further claim for Incapacity Benefit which was made prior to the date of hearing.

3.	The claimant had two grounds for appeal (the first only of which is supported by the Adjudication Officer).  That ground was that the Tribunal had erred in law in that it had not considered the matter down to the date of the Tribunal hearing but had considered same only as at the date of the Adjudication Officer's decision.  The Adjudication Officer supported this ground of the appeal and referred me to a decision of a Tribunal of Commissioners in Great Britain (CIB/14430/96, CIS/12015/96 and CS/12054/96) and a decision of the Chief Commissioner in Northern Ireland (C55/97(IB)).

4.	For the reasons given in the common appendix to the three decisions of the GB Commissioners set out above I am of the view that the Tribunal did err in law and should have dealt with the appeal down to the date of the hearing or to the day before the first day considered by an Adjudicating Authority on a subsequent incapacity benefit claim (ie subsequent to the disallowance by the Adjudication Officer on this claim).

5.	With regard to the second ground of appeal I am not of the view that the decision made was one which no reasonable Tribunal could have come to.  The Tribunal certainly did take on board the fact that the claimant's blood pressure readings were high.  It comments in considerable detail and very specifically on same.  But as the decision correctly states "The claimant has many conditions which impinge upon his daily living.  However the scope for translating same into scores is limited".   Not every condition and indeed not every symptom will produce limitations which can be considered under the various activities and descriptors.

6.	I do not consider that this is a case in which I can make the appropriate findings of fact and I therefore remit the matter for hearing by a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal.

(Signed):  M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

10 September 1998