QB-2018-004997 - [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

I accept the evidence of Dr McDowell (supported by the orthopaedic experts) that the increase in muscle which he noted in June 2019 as compared to the generalised wasting noted in the clinical notes in May 2017, was a sign that the left upper limb was being used more.

The differences between what the Claimant told the Part 35 experts who examined her and what she can be seen doing are stark. They are not capable of being explained by assistance from her friend Shireen. I do not accept the explanation that she was rendered capable of doing what she can be seen doing by pain killers and a spinal cord stimulator. Neither had helped her in the past or would do so again. She chose to hire and drive a horsebox with manual transmission. That of itself is inconsistent with her account as to the extent of her disability.

The difference in the Claimant’s presentation was sufficiently material to cause Professor Lalkhen to change the opinion he offered to the court. I am not surprised that he did not feel able to repeat the reassurance that he had previously offered the court that her presentation was in keeping with what he would expect from an honest Claimant.

The Claimant’s April 2022 account of her disability to the DWP cannot realistically be reconciled with what she can be seen doing a little over a month earlier.

The Claimant relies on the evidence of the witnesses, Maureen O’Connell and Shireen Timmis to corroborate her account of her disability at this time. I do not accept that evidence. Maureen O’Connell came across to me as a witness who was making some effort to assist the court but by reason of her close relationship with her grand-daughter. However, she found it difficult to be objective. She was also and, to a material extent, reliant on and inclined to accept what the Claimant told her about the extent of her disability. I am driven to the conclusion that Shireen Timmis gave what she knew to be a partial and inaccurate account of the Claimant’s disability and of her involvement with horses to which I shall turn below.

The Claimant’s presentation on the video is of someone with normal or near normal function in their left upper limb and shoulder. That is what I find the Claimant had at that time. I do not accept her accounts of continuing pain and hypersensitivity. I find her evidence in relation to her symptoms must be dishonest.