[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 C1/96(AA) (4 March 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1996/C1_96(AA).html Cite as: [1996] NISSCSC C1/96(AA)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1996] NISSCSC C1/96(AA) (4 March 1996)

Decision No: C1/96(AA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

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 Disability Appeal Tribunal

dated 4 May 1995

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
 


1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT) which upheld the decision of an Adjudication Officer that claimant was not entitled to attendance allowance.
2. I arranged an oral hearing at which claimant was not present but was represented by Mr Michael Brady and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw.
3. At that hearing I granted leave to appeal and with the consent of both parties treated the application as the appeal.
4. Briefly the facts are that the claimant made a claim for attendance allowance stating that she suffered from hypertension, diabetes, osteoarthritis, dizzy spells and poor eyesight. That claim was disallowed by an Adjudication Officer from 28 April 1994. She requested a review and a different Adjudication Officer reviewed the decision but did not alter it.
5. Briefly the facts are that the claimant is a lady of 73 years of age. The refusal of her claim for attendance allowance by the Adjudication Officer was upheld by an Appeal Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal made findings of fact as follows:-

"The following applies from 28 April 1994.

Mrs M... suffers from some joint pains, diabetes, high blood

pressure. She has a reasonably good range of hand movements.

She can wash herself but is given assistance to wash her hair and

to bath as she is fearful of same due to blood pressure and because

she suffers from some vertigo.

She feel recently when she tripped in street.

We accept the observations and findings of the Attendance Allowance

Medical Report except that we do accept some supervision may

reasonably be required when bathing and to tie shoe laces.

Mrs M... since 28 April 1994 has been able to be safely left in

the house without supervision for substantial periods."

7. At the hearing before me Mr Brady argued that the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and findings of fact upon which it was based and also it based its decision upon insufficient evidence. He argued that claimant's sister had died a couple of days before the Tribunal and that it was difficult to get the facts from her and that since the medical examination she had got worse. He went on to detail at length her present complaints.
8. Mr Shaw said that what was required to satisfy the regulations was continual supervision and that it was quite clear that there was no continual supervision in the present case, and that the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and reasons which were adequate and sufficient to enable the applicant to know why her appeal was not successful. He said that it was not clear from Mr Brady's arguments which evidence the Tribunal did not receive and said that the Tribunal did not err in failing to obtain additional medical evidence.
9. I have considered all that has been said and I have examined carefully the record of the proceedings before the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the findings of fact are adequate and that the reasons given are sufficient to enable any person to know why the benefit was not allowed.
10. I can find no error of law in the proceedings nor is there any error in the findings of fact and the reasons for the decision and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

4 March 1996