Walther v The Police Medical Appeal Board & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves a judicial review challenge to two decisions: first, the refusal by a Selected Medical Practitioner ("the SMP") appointed on behalf of the Second Defendant Metropolitan Police Authority ("the Police Authority") to award an injury pension; and second, the dismissal by the First Defendant, the Police Medical Appeal Board ("the Board"), of the Claimant's appeal against that refusal.

The Claimant, born in November 1966, joined the Metropolitan Police Force at age 17 and was medically retired in March 2008 due to "left shoulder impingement syndrome, lumbar disc degeneration and depression." The SMP considered the depression transient and the shoulder injury not significantly disabling, focusing on the back condition as the cause of medical retirement.

The Claimant’s back issues began in 1995 with an injury while restraining a prisoner, followed by a road traffic accident causing low back pain. Despite degenerative disc disease confirmed by MRI scans in 2001 and 2004, he returned to full duties until April 2006, when he sustained a significant injury during officer safety training. This injury was agreed by medical experts to have accelerated his underlying condition, causing ongoing pain and disability.

Following surgery in February 2007, the Claimant’s sciatic pain improved but not his lower back pain, and he could not return to full duties. The SMP concluded in October 2008 that the Claimant’s condition was long-standing degenerative disease accelerated by the 2006 injury but not caused by it, thus not qualifying as an injury on duty under the relevant legal principles.

The Board, including an orthopaedic surgeon, agreed that the 2006 injury accelerated the Claimant’s condition causing permanent worsening, but ruled that because the disablement would have occurred anyway, the injury did not cause or contribute to the permanent disablement for pension purposes. Consequently, the Claimant was denied an injury award.

The Claimant filed for judicial review on 4 November 2009, challenging both the SMP’s decision and the Board’s dismissal of his appeal. Permission for judicial review was granted on 17 February 2010. The First Defendant did not appear, while the Second Defendant contested the review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Second Defendant took the appropriate approach to the issue of causation within the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 ("the 2006 Regulations").
2. Specifically, whether an injury that accelerates the onset of a permanent disablement, which would have arisen later anyway, causes or substantially contributes to that disablement so as to entitle the claimant to an injury pension under Regulation 11 of the 2006 Regulations.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments

• The approach under Regulation 30(2) is sequential: first establish disablement, then permanence, then causation by injury.
• The test for permanent disablement focuses on the claimant’s condition at the time of assessment, irrespective of whether the disablement would have occurred later without the injury.
• Acceleration of the disablement is irrelevant; if the claimant is permanently disabled at the assessment time, causation should be established.

Defendant's Arguments

• Regulation 11(1) is the "master provision" requiring permanent disablement to be causally linked to the injury; the permanent quality of disablement must result from the injury.
• The term "disablement" in the Regulations must be understood consistently to include permanence when determining entitlement to an injury award.
• Regulation 30(2)(c) must be read as requiring consideration of whether the permanent disablement results from the injury.
• Relied on Jennings v Humberside Police (2002), where acceleration of a pre-existing degenerative condition was held insufficient to establish causation for an injury award.
• Argued that acceleration cases fall outside the scope of the Regulations for injury awards.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by clarifying that the Claimant was permanently disabled due to an injury received without his own default in the execution of duty. The central question was whether the injury had caused or substantially contributed to the permanent disablement, considering that the disablement would have occurred later regardless.

The court examined the regulatory framework, emphasizing that permanence is a necessary quality of disablement for pension entitlement. It rejected the Claimant’s argument that the timing of disablement alone is determinative, and also rejected the Defendant’s rigid interpretation that acceleration cases fall outside the Regulations.

The court analyzed the Jennings case and its subsequent treatment in the Court of Appeal's decision in the London Fire Authority case. It found that Jennings did not establish a general principle excluding acceleration cases from pension awards; rather, causation is a medical question that depends on the extent of contribution.

The court reasoned that a short acceleration is unlikely to be a substantial contribution to permanent disablement, but a significant acceleration could be. The dividing line is a factual determination for each case.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the SMP and Board erred in law by treating acceleration cases as automatically excluded from entitlement. The Claimant’s case required reconsideration on the proper legal basis.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the decisions of the SMP and the Police Medical Appeal Board.

The Claimant’s application for an injury pension was remitted to the SMP for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles regarding causation and acceleration.

No new precedent was established; the decision clarifies that acceleration of a permanent disablement can constitute a substantial contribution under the Regulations and should be assessed on the facts rather than excluded as a matter of law.