HIGH COURT RULING-INJURY REVIEWS

Steve Edwards

Deputy CEO

National Association Of Retired Police Officers

38 Bond Street
Lawtel document(s) - 01/12/2009 15:40

R (on the application of LAWS) v POLICE MEDICAL APPEAL BOARD (2009)

QBD (Admin) (Cox J) 16/11/2009
PENSIONS - POLICE
DISABLED PERSONS : OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS : POLICE OFFICERS : ASSESSMENT OF POLICE OFFICER DISABLEMENT PENSION: APPROPRIATENESS OF RECONSIDERATION OF DEGREE OF DISABLEMENT : POLICE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS 2006 : reg.7(5) POLICE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS 2006 : reg.30 POLICE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS 2006
Where the Police Medical Appeal Board had not addressed the task imposed on it by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 in relation to a retired police officer's disability pension, and had impermissibly revisited the cause of the disability leading to the officer's retirement, its reduction of the officer's pension was inappropriate.
The claimant former police officer (L) applied for judicial review of a decision of the defendant Police Medical Appeal Board to reduce her disability pension. L had sustained a soft tissue injury whilst on duty and subsequently retired from the interested party police authority on medical grounds. L's condition was assessed by a selected medical practitioner who found that L was suffering severe neurological pain as a result of her injury and that the degree of her disablement was 60 per cent. That degree of disablement was subsequently increased by the board to 85 per cent and L was awarded a commensurate disability pension. L's pension was reviewed on two further occasions and on each occasion her degree of disablement was assessed as not having substantially altered and her pension was maintained at 85 per cent. At a later review a selected medical practitioner considered that L would be able to work for 30 hours per week and that her pension should be reduced from 85 per cent to 25 per cent. The board, considering L's appeal to it, determined that its task was to assess the impact upon L's earning capacity of the injury sustained by her. The board found that the degree of the reported functionality was inconsistent with L's injury and that the degree of L's disablement was 25 per cent.

HELD: (1) It was clear that the selected medical practitioner and the board had carried out a fresh assessment of L's injury rather than determine whether L's disability had substantially altered since her last review. That was not their function as it was clear that under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 a decision of a selected medical practitioner as to the degree of a pensioner's disablement was final and that the purpose of a review was to determine: whether the degree of disablement of a pensioner had altered since the last review; whether it had substantially altered, and to determine what changes should be made as a result of that alteration, R (on the application of Pollard) v Police Medical Appeal Board (2009) EWHC 403 (Admin) and R (on the application of Turner) v Police Medical Appeal Board (2009) EWHC 1867 (Admin) applied. (2) It was apparent that the board, in rejecting L's appeal to it, had had regard to the fact that L had completed a degree. L's degree, and any increase in her employability consequent on the degree, was not a matter that fell for consideration in assessing whether L's disability had altered, as reg.7(5) and reg.30(7)(d) required that an assessment of the alteration, if any, of L's disablement was limited to factors which resulted from the injury.

Application granted
Counsel:
For the claimant: D Lock
For the defendant: No appearance or representation
For the interested party: S Walsh

Solicitors:
For the claimant: Lake Jackson
For the interested party: In-house solicitor
LTL 16/11/2009 EXTEMPORE
AC9501726

National Association of Retired Police Officers

HIGH COURT RULING-INJURY REVIEWS

http://www.narpowestyorkshire.co.uk

08:44 10-Sep-2010