GS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA)

Factual and Procedural Background

This decision arises under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, concerning an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal at Chesterfield under reference 031/09/00900, held on 2 October 2009. The issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the First-tier Tribunal made an error on a point of law in its decision. The case involved assessment of manual dexterity descriptors related to a claimant’s physical capabilities, particularly concerning the ability to manipulate small buttons and other hand functions relevant to work-related tasks.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation and application of the manual dexterity descriptors, especially descriptor 6(f) regarding the ability to do up or undo small buttons.
2. Whether one-handed use of manual dexterity tasks falls within the scope of the descriptor 6(f) or whether the descriptor requires two-handed manipulation.
3. The appropriate approach to interpreting the descriptor in the context of the claimant’s functional capacity and the intended purpose of the descriptor in assessing manual dexterity for work capability.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the inability to fasten certain buttons, such as the left cuff button and potentially the top shirt button with a tight collar, should satisfy descriptor 6(f).
• It was argued that the descriptor should be interpreted to reflect the claimant’s actual physical capacity to manipulate buttons, not dependent on the garment’s design or accessibility of buttons.
• The appellant submitted that the descriptor’s focus is on manual dexterity and that one-handed manipulation should not be considered adequate to avoid meeting the descriptor.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Secretary of State asserted that descriptor 6(f) does not require the ability to do up every single button on a garment, and that fastening most buttons can be done with one hand, which is within normal use.
• It was submitted that the descriptor primarily concerns small buttons generally and does not distinguish between long-sleeved or short-sleeved garments or require all buttons to be manipulated.
• The respondent contended that one-handed use is not so far beyond normal use as to satisfy the descriptor.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R(IB)02/03	Focus on the underlying function the descriptor is designed to test.	The Upper Tribunal Judge cited this decision to support focusing on manual dexterity as the key functional capacity being assessed by descriptor 6(f).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the manual dexterity descriptors, particularly descriptor 6(f), which concerns the ability to do up or undo small buttons such as those on shirts or blouses. The Tribunal reasoned that the descriptor does not require the claimant to be able to manipulate every button on a garment, but rather small buttons generally. The court emphasized that fastening most buttons can be achieved with one hand by most people and found no evidence that the appellant was an exception to this.

The Tribunal accepted that certain buttons, such as cuff buttons, may be impossible for the appellant to fasten, but concluded this did not meet the descriptor’s threshold because the descriptor is not intended to cover every button or require two-handed manipulation in all cases.

The Upper Tribunal agreed with the approach of focusing on the underlying function that the descriptor tests—manual dexterity relevant to work-related tasks—as supported by guidance in the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) Handbook. It was noted that descriptor 6(f) implies the need for two-handed manipulation, distinguishing it from descriptors that consider impairment in one hand only.

The court also considered the structure of the assessment, which isolates physical disabilities by body part and assigns scores to reflect work capability. The Tribunal found that the appellant’s limitations did not meet the criteria for descriptor 6(f) because the claimant retained sufficient manual dexterity to manipulate accessible buttons with one hand, which is within the range of normal use.

Regarding the medical reports, the Tribunal noted that the initial reports by a registered nurse were amended by an auditor due to omissions, but no amendments were made to the claimant’s condition or advised descriptors. The Tribunal observed that the medical report was not audited with due care, but this did not affect the legal analysis of the descriptor application.

Holding and Implications

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal did not make an error of law in its decision regarding the manual dexterity descriptors. The Tribunal’s interpretation of descriptor 6(f) as requiring more than one-handed manipulation for small buttons was upheld.

DISPOSED OF

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s claim under descriptor 6(f) was not met, affirming the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond confirming the proper interpretative approach to manual dexterity descriptors in the context of work capability assessments.