Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal

Case number:

[2017]TRS007

 

 

Date:

19 Jan 2017

Held at:

The Jersey Tribunal Offices, Bath Street, St Helier

Before:

Deputy Chairman D.J. Benest, Dr B. Kellett and Dr N. Charles

Nature of Claim:

Long Term Incapacity Allowance (LTIA)

Hearing Type:

Social Security Medical Appeal

 

 

Appellant:

“G”

Respondent:

The Minister for Social Security

 

 

1.    The Appellant appeals against the decision of the Minister dated 15 August 2016, following review, to assess his Long Term Incapacity Allowance on the basis of a 30% loss of faculty. The Tribunal sat on 19 January 2017 to hear the appeal.

 

2.    Until 8 July 2016 the Appellant’s loss of faculty had been assessed at 50% and a scheduled medical board then reassessed it at 30% at that date. The Appellant sought a review of that decision which resulted in the maintenance of a 30% impairment and he appeals that decision.

 

3.    The basis of the appeal is broadly that he asserts that there has been no change in his condition such as would allow any positive reassessment of it, indeed he says that his condition has worsened.

 

4.    That condition has both physical and mental health components. His physical complaints arise from a work injury to his left knee that has left him with a permanent and chronic disability. That is overlaid with regional pain syndrome and depression and anxiety.

 

5.    The Tribunal has read in detail and noted the reports of the Medical Board in July 2013 that assessed the Appellant at 50% impairment, and those of July 2016 and the Redetermination in August 2016 that are the subject of the appeal. It has also had the benefit of hearing from the Medical Board Doctor who carried out the recent determinations and asking questions of them.  Likewise the Tribunal has

 

been able to hear from the Appellant directly about his state of health and to come to its own view of his level of impairment and the manner in which that is made up.

 

6.    After careful consideration the Tribunal has come to the view that the appeal should be allowed and the Appellant’s loss of faculty assessed at 50%. It has come to that view because it considers that whilst proper account was taken by the Medical Board of the Appellant’s physical injuries, insufficient weight was placed on the extent and impact of his anxiety and depression and his chronic pain, which in the Tribunal’s considered view merit an increase in the 2016 assessment.

 

 

   

 

Advocate D.J. Benest, Deputy Chairman                                                    21 April 2017

                                   

 


Page Last Updated: 04 Oct 2017