CT

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an appeal before the Upper Tribunal regarding the assessment of disablement under the Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (the 2006 Order). The claimant, born in 1946, served in the RAF from 1967 to 1993 and claimed a pension under the 2006 Order in 1996. Nine conditions were accepted as due to his service, including a left inguinal hernia, which was only accepted after an application in 1997 but not accepted until 2008. Prior to acceptance of the hernia, the claimant's disablement was assessed at 30% for other conditions.

Following acceptance of the hernia, a medical examination advised no functional impairment from the hernia, so the disablement assessment remained at 30%. The claimant appealed this assessment. The appeal jurisdiction had transferred from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to the First-tier Tribunal and onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the 30% assessment after a detailed hearing involving evidence on all conditions. The claimant was represented by a specialist organisation. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal and conducted an oral hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the tribunal's reasons for its assessment of disablement under the 2006 Order were adequate.
2. The proper legal approach to assessing disablement and the standard of reasons required for such assessments.
3. The extent to which the tribunal must identify and explain the nature and degree of disablement as distinct from the underlying conditions or injuries.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its assessment, particularly by not identifying disablement from some conditions based on an earlier medical report.
• The claimant was not sufficiently aware that all conditions were being considered in the composite assessment, not just the hernia.
• The tribunal’s reference to amputations and a 40% disablement comparison was inappropriate or unclear.

Respondent's Arguments

• The tribunal’s reasons were adequate, as it made methodical and structured findings on all relevant conditions in dispute.
• The tribunal was entitled to rely on the earlier medical board report for certain conditions where no significant change was alleged.
• The claimant and his representative must have understood that all conditions were considered in the assessment, given the nature of the hearing and representation by a specialist organisation.
• The reference to amputations and 40% was a permissible comparative remark and did not form part of the tribunal’s reasons.
• If reasons were inadequate, the correct procedure would be to seek supplementary reasons rather than ordering a rehearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework under the 2006 Order, emphasizing that disablement must be assessed by comparing the claimant's condition to that of a normal healthy person of the same age and sex without considering earning capacity or extraneous factors. The tribunal must identify the disablement itself, which is distinct from the underlying injury or condition, and assess the degree of disablement on a percentage scale, with assessments over 20% certified in 10% bands.

The court stressed that the tribunal’s assessment is judicial and must be supported by adequate reasons to avoid arbitrariness. Adequate reasons are those sufficient to show how and why the tribunal made its decision and that it acted within the law. The reasons must demonstrate that the tribunal applied the correct legal criteria, made findings on all relevant matters, and addressed evidence properly.

The tribunal’s reasons in this case were found to be methodical and structured, showing correct legal direction and findings on all disputed conditions. The tribunal relied on a prior medical board report for some conditions where no change was alleged, which was appropriate. The tribunal’s composite 30% disablement assessment was supported by detailed findings describing the claimant’s symptoms and their impact, including the claimant’s own evidence.

The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the tribunal failed to explain the assessment adequately or that the claimant was unaware all conditions were considered. The court also noted that a comparative remark made during the hearing about amputations and 40% disablement was permissible and not part of the tribunal’s formal reasons.

Regarding procedural matters, the court recognized the Upper Tribunal’s power to request supplementary reasons but found it unnecessary here as the tribunal’s reasons were adequate. The court acknowledged that supplementary reasons may be problematic when significant time has elapsed since the original hearing.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s 30% disablement assessment and found its reasons legally adequate. This decision confirms the standards for tribunal reasoning in disablement assessments under the 2006 Order, emphasizing the need for methodical, structured findings that identify disablement distinct from conditions and explain the application of the legal test. No new precedent was set beyond affirming existing principles, and the direct effect is that the claimant’s assessment remains unchanged.