Metropolitan Police Authority v Laws & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

An appeal was brought with permission against a decision of the Administrative Court judge who allowed a judicial review claim challenging a decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board ("the Board"). The appellant is the Police Authority, and the claimant is the respondent to the appeal. The Board had rejected the claimant's appeal against a Selected Medical Practitioner's ("SMP") determination reducing the claimant's degree of disablement for police injury pension purposes from 85% to 25%.

The claimant joined the police force in 1995 and was injured in the course of duty in 1997. Following medical assessments, she was retired on ill health grounds in 1999 with a 60% disablement rating, which was successfully appealed to 85%. Subsequent reviews maintained the 85% rating until 2008, when the SMP reassessed her disablement at 25%, considering her completion of a law degree and capability to work part-time. The claimant appealed this reassessment to the Board, which upheld the 25% rating. The claimant then sought judicial review of the Board’s decision, which was granted by the Administrative Court judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Board erred in law by conducting a fresh assessment of the claimant’s degree of disablement rather than considering whether there had been a substantial alteration since the last review under the relevant Police Injury Benefit Regulations.
2. Whether the Board was entitled to revisit or re-open earlier medical findings underpinning the prior assessments.
3. Whether the claimant’s acquisition of a law degree could be taken into account in assessing the degree of disablement and its impact on earning capacity under the Regulations.
4. Whether the Board’s assessment that the claimant was capable of working 30 hours per week was rational and supported by evidence.
5. The appropriate remedy where the Board and SMP decisions were found to have revisited earlier findings contrary to the proper construction of the Regulations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Board and SMP should assess the claimant’s current degree of disablement afresh, comparing it with the previous assessment but not being bound by earlier clinical judgments.
• The finality provisions in the Regulations do not prevent the Board from departing from earlier clinical findings in forming a new assessment.
• The Board properly identified a substantial alteration in the claimant’s disablement since the 2005 review, justifying the reduction in pension.
• The claimant’s law degree and ability to apply for jobs were relevant factors in assessing earning capacity.
• The Board’s conclusion that the claimant could work 30 hours per week was reasonable and supported by the SMP’s findings.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Regulations require that each determination by the SMP or Board is final and the Board cannot revisit or re-open earlier medical findings except on appeal or judicial review.
• The Board erred by conducting a fresh assessment rather than considering whether the degree of disablement had substantially altered since the last final decision.
• The claimant’s law degree is not a change in earning capacity "as a result of" the duty injury and should not affect the disablement assessment.
• The Board’s questioning of earlier injury severity and clinical findings was impermissible re-opening of settled matters.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analyzed the relevant Police Injury Benefit Regulations, particularly Regulations 30(6), 31(3), and 37(1), which establish the finality of decisions by the SMP and the Board, and the limited scope for periodic reviews. The court held that the SMP’s and Board’s decisions on the degree of disablement are final and cannot be revisited on review except to determine if there has been a substantial alteration since the last final assessment.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the Board could conduct a fresh merits-based assessment including re-examining earlier clinical findings. The court found that such an approach conflicts with the clear language of the Regulations and would undermine the certainty intended by the scheme. The Board’s decision was flawed because it effectively re-opened and questioned settled findings about the nature and extent of the claimant’s injury and disablement rather than focusing solely on whether there had been a substantial change since the last review.

Regarding the claimant’s law degree, the court disagreed with the Administrative Court judge’s reasoning that the degree could not be taken into account. The court reasoned that Regulation 7(5) contemplates that earning capacity may vary over time due to external factors, including acquisition of new skills, and that this could affect the degree of disablement. However, the court noted that the impact of the degree on actual earning capacity might be modest and speculative absent concrete job prospects.

On the issue of the number of hours the claimant could work, the court found the Board’s conclusion rational and supported by medical evidence, but this point did not affect the outcome given the overriding issue of the Board’s unlawful re-assessment.

Finally, the court agreed with the Administrative Court judge that the SMP’s 2008 decision was also legally flawed for similar reasons, having revisited earlier findings impermissibly.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, upholding the Administrative Court judge’s decision to quash the Board’s and SMP’s decisions made in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

The claimant’s injury pension remains assessed at 85% as determined in the 2005 review until a further review is conducted in accordance with the proper legal framework. Future reviews must respect the finality of prior assessments and focus only on whether there has been a substantial alteration in the claimant’s degree of disablement since the last final decision, taking into account changes in earning capacity including external factors such as new skills.

No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the proper construction and application of the relevant Police Injury Benefit Regulations concerning finality and review of pension disablement assessments.