Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(IB)5/05
File Number:	CSIB 598 2004
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mrs L.T. Parker
Date Of Decision:	21/12/2004
Date Added:	21/01/2005
Main Category:	Incapacity benefits
Main Subcategory:	awt/pca: general
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Incapacity for work - effect of amending regulation following misleading reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee - validity of supersession following personal capability assessment The claimant had been in receipt of national insurance credits. The personal capability assessment (PCA) was applied to him and following a report from a medical adviser, he satisfied the PCA. Preceding the examination by the medical adviser, he completed a questionnaire for incapacity benefit and was examined by a second medical adviser who considered that none of the claimed descriptors was satisfied. As a result, a decision-maker superseded the earlier decision awarding credits. The tribunal refused the claimant's appeal. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. The Secretary of State supported the appeal on one ground only: the standard of reasoning required when addressing the evidence which supported the original award. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Howker v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 1623, R(IB) 3/03 was that, with respect to any of the regulations in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 which were held to be invalid, then the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (General) Regulations 1995 required to be read as if the 1996 changes had not been made. However, the decision in Howker did not undermine the application of a valid PCA. Accordingly there was no error in the tribunal's approach to the effect of Howker (paragraph 32); 2. an adjudicating authority had to decide whether the effect of a particular amendment made by the 1996 Regulations was potentially adverse to the claimant. In each case, a tribunal must carry out a legal reasoning process as to whether a particular amendment could be categorised as "neutral" (paragraph 29). The tribunal was entitled to hold that the decision-maker was wrong to apply certain descriptors in their amended form and if yes, correct the process (paragraph 31: R(IB) 2/04 followed); 3. although a ground for supersession had automatically arisen under regulation 6(2)(g) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, this did not mean that an adverse supersession was similarly automatic. The totality of evidence, including prior medical assessments, was relevant. However, a tribunal's statement assumes an informed reader and, in the context of all the information before the tribunal and its reference to the previous medical papers, its reasoning was adequate (paragraphs 36 to 39); 4. a tribunal's analysis of the evidence was not rendered erroneous because it did not point out in a formulaic way that even if it was wrong in one of the factors on which it had relied, nevertheless the remaining factors justify why it did not judge the claimant's evidence to be credible (paragraph 43).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(IB) 5_05 bv.doc