Decision No: A66/02-03(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Application by the above-named for
leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision
dated 3 September 2002

	DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

Having considered the circumstances of the case and any reasons put forward in the request for a hearing, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing.

Having read the case papers it does not appear that there is any valid ground for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law.  

Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

I am prepared, in exercise of my powers under the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, to waive the irregularity of the application for leave to appeal not being accompanied by the written statement of the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons for its decision.

There does not appear to be any arguable error of law in the Tribunal not holding an oral hearing in this case.  The claimant, on his appeal letter dated 13 June 2002, had been asked if he wanted an oral hearing or if he wanted his appeal decided on the papers.  He indicated that he wanted it decided on the papers.  He was advised by letter sent to him by the Appeals Service dated 13 August 2002 that as no party had requested a hearing the matter would be determined on the papers.  It does not appear arguable that the Tribunal could not properly decide the appeal on the papers.

There is no arguable error in the Tribunal not giving consideration to medical evidence from the claimant’s G.P. which was not before it and which the claimant had not requested it to obtain.  Nor is there any arguable error in its not obtaining such evidence.

There does not appear to be any arguable error in the Tribunal relying on the medical evidence which was before it.

There is no arguable error in the Tribunal’s decision arising from the legally qualified panel member’s not having set aside the said decision.  The decision on set aside is made by the legally qualified panel member, not the Tribunal. As such it is not part of the Tribunal’s decision which is in its nature separate and distinct.

I am unable to ascertain any arguable error of law in the Tribunal’s decision whether as indicated by the claimant or otherwise.  If the claimant considers there is an error in the decision on set aside made by the legally qualified panel member this is not a matter on which I have jurisdiction.  My jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the Tribunal’s decision.

(Signed):	M F BROWN
		COMMISSIONER

20 April 2004