BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> [1996] NISSCSC A40/96(IB) (15 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1996/A40_96(IB).html Cite as: [1996] NISSCSC A40/96(IB) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
[1996] NISSCSC A40/96(IB) (15 April 1997)
A40/96(IB)
Mr O... stated that his two principal points were that the Tribunal's decision was ambiguous and that it was based upon insufficient evidence. At this stage it might be convenient to set out the Tribunal's "reasons for decision" in full. They were as follows:-
"The tribunal have considered all the evidence in this case. Weaccept the claimant to be a genuine lady who has looked after her
handicapped daughter for many years. No doubt this has affected
her health, and this coupled with her own physical problems have
lead to a certain restriction in her ability to carry out the
activities referred to in the Regulations. We believe that she
has greatly over-estimated the degree by which her medical condition
would restrict her. Having considered the Medical Referee's clinical
findings and the facts of the examination, we believe that the
Medical Referee's opinion is one based on the reality of the
situation. The claimant has certain restrictions which we have set
out in our findings. We differ from the Medical Referee in the
areas of standing, sitting and bending. Having heard the claimant
we accept that there is a modest reduction in capacity in these
areas. We also believe that the claimant has a few mental health
descriptors, but again we believe she has overstated her problems.
We have considered the evidence of Dr L( and Dr F(.
We accept their assessment that she, in her present state, may be
incapable of work. We, however, must deal with the legislation
and look at the ability to undertake certain tasks. We also do not
doubt her truthfulness. The main point, as it appears to us, is
that her assessment of her ability does not conform with the
clinical facts on examination."
Mr O... submitted that it was ambiguous of the Tribunal to accept the Medical Referee's opinion and then go on to record that they differed from him in the areas of standing, sitting and bending. I pointed out that if there was any difference of opinion it had operated entirely in the claimant's interests, in that it had resulted in the award of points which she would not otherwise have received. Mr O... agreed, but nevertheless maintained that there was apparent ambiguity in the decision. So far as the insufficiency of the evidence was concerned Mr O... submitted that the Medical Referee's report was "fatally flawed" in that it had not been based upon an internal examination. That omission was crucial and the absence of such examination affected the whole of the Medical Referee's report. The claimant's own doctors were much more familiar with her condition and both had expressed the opinion that she was incapable of work. That had not been taken sufficiently into account by the Appeal Tribunal. Mr O... further maintained that, although the claimant had stopped work many years ago in order to look after her disabled daughter, she should nevertheless have been regarded as having been in employment as "a carer" up until the date on which her daughter went into a home. If the Tribunal had accepted that the claimant stopped work at that date, it could have been held that mental stress was a factor in causing her to do so; in which event additional points would have been awarded.
Mr McAvoy relied upon the observations in his letter of 20 December 1996. The medical examination had lasted 1 hour 5 minutes and it was normal practice for the doctor's opinions to be based on clinical examination and questioning.
(Signed): R R Chambers
CHIEF COMMISSIONER
15 April 1997