Laws, R (on the application of) v The Police Medical Appeal Board

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a former police constable who joined the Metropolitan Police Service in 1995, suffered injuries from an assault incident in 1997 while on duty. Initially assessed with a 60 per cent degree of disablement, her appeal led to an increased assessment of 85 per cent by a Medical Referee in 1999, recognizing severe and permanent disability including psychiatric symptoms linked to the injury. She was retired on medical grounds and received an injury pension accordingly.

Subsequent reviews in 2002 and 2005 maintained her degree of disablement at 85 per cent. The Plaintiff pursued part-time law studies, graduating in 2008. A further pension review in 2008 by the Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP) reduced her degree of disablement to 25 per cent, citing improved functional capacity and employability, partly due to her law degree. The Plaintiff appealed to the Police Medical Appeal Board (the Board), which upheld the 25 per cent assessment, leading to this judicial review challenge.

Procedurally, an initial order by Nicol J scheduled a "rolled up" hearing to consider both delay and substantive issues. Delay objections were later withdrawn by the Board, allowing the substantive appeal to proceed before the court. The SMP’s decision was not separately challenged initially, as the Board’s decision was considered the effective determination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Board correctly identified and applied the statutory task required by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, specifically whether they properly determined if the Plaintiff's degree of disablement had substantially altered since the last review in 2005.
2. Whether the Board erred in re-assessing the Plaintiff’s condition afresh rather than focusing on changes since the last assessment.
3. Whether the Board was bound by earlier determinations of the Medical Referee and previous reviews, particularly regarding causation and the psychiatric component of the Plaintiff’s disability.
4. Whether the Board lawfully considered the Plaintiff's acquisition of a law degree as relevant to her degree of disablement and earning capacity under the regulations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Board misdirected itself by conducting a fresh assessment of the Plaintiff's disablement rather than determining whether there had been a substantial alteration since 2005, contrary to regulatory requirements.
• The Board failed to treat prior decisions by the Medical Referee and previous reviews as binding, improperly reopening settled issues such as causation and the psychiatric nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
• The Board erred in considering the Plaintiff’s law degree as a factor improving her earning capacity related to the duty injury, which is irrelevant under the statutory scheme.
• The Board’s decision was irrational, particularly the conclusion that the Plaintiff could work 30 hours per week given her part-time study status and disability.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Board did not reopen or re-investigate settled questions but made an independent assessment necessary to determine if there had been a substantial change in disablement.
• The Board was entitled to consider the Plaintiff’s current condition and employability, including the impact of her law degree, as part of assessing earning capacity.
• The decision of the SMP in 2005 was final, but the Board's role was to assess the situation at the time of the appeal to ensure the pension reflected any change.
• Any procedural technicalities regarding permission to challenge the SMP’s decision could be addressed through further applications.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analyzed the statutory framework governing police injury pensions, particularly the 2006 Regulations and their predecessors, focusing on the roles of the SMP and the Board in reassessing disablement.

The court emphasized that each decision on degree of disablement is final unless a substantial alteration occurs, triggering a reassessment under regulation 37. The Board was required to determine if the Plaintiff's disablement had substantially changed since the 2005 review, not to conduct a full fresh assessment of the original injury or causation.

Reviewing the Board’s report, the court found that the Board misdirected itself by framing its task as assessing the current impact of the original injury without adequately comparing it to the 2005 position. The Board's focus on inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's account and on symptoms unrelated to the injury demonstrated a failure to confine the inquiry to the statutory question of substantial alteration.

The court further found that the Board improperly revisited settled issues of causation and psychiatric injury, despite these having been conclusively decided by the Medical Referee in 1999. This was contrary to the principle of finality emphasized in the cited precedents.

Regarding the consideration of the Plaintiff’s law degree, the court held that any increase in earning capacity due to factors unrelated to the duty injury could not lawfully be taken into account in assessing disablement. The Board's reliance on the degree to support a reduction in disablement was therefore erroneous.

The court also found the Board’s conclusion that the Plaintiff could work 30 hours per week irrational, given the evidence of her part-time study with extensive support and her disability.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the Board’s decision was legally flawed on multiple grounds and quashed it. The court also addressed procedural issues about permission to challenge the SMP’s decision, indicating a route to renew that application in light of the judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to QUASH the Police Medical Appeal Board’s decision rejecting the Plaintiff’s appeal against the reduction of her injury pension.

As a direct effect, the Plaintiff retains entitlement to an 85 per cent injury pension until a lawful decision is made following a proper review in accordance with the statutory framework. The judgment establishes no new precedent but reinforces the finality of medical decisions under the Police Injury Benefit Regulations and the limited scope for reassessment, emphasizing that reassessments must focus strictly on substantial alterations in disablement caused by the duty injury.

The court also addressed procedural matters, allowing for the possibility of renewing permission to challenge the SMP’s original decision to ensure a coherent and lawful review process going forward.