![[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Error in failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence
Error in failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in not finding that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence. Dr Holt opined that—
“Ms [H] is likely to experience longstanding symptoms” (paragraph 7.11.1, page C359);
“7.12.1 Given the profile of difficulties that has been identified during this assessment, and their pervasive nature, I think that they will continue to have a permanent impact on Ms [H’s] ability to sustain paid employment or to enjoy adaptive interpersonal relationships with others. As already stated, it is my opinion that the recommended type and amount of treatment can enable Ms [H] to experience significantly reduced symptoms and to develop adaptive coping strategies to apply on a day to day basis.” (page C360).
I accept Ms H’s submission that ““Significantly reduced symptoms” implies that the symptoms will persist, albeit with strategies to manage them” (page TG28).
- Heading
- I allow this judicial review to the extent of remittal
- Introduction
- Factual and procedural background
- First-tier Tribunal appeal
- Grant of permission to bring judicial review
- Submissions after grant of permission
- Law
- Analysis
- Error by misquoting the test in Note 2 of the Tariff to the scheme and by appearing to assume that, without a substantial adverse impact on Ms H’s day-to-day activities, the DMI was present but not pe
- Error in failing to seek a further report from Dr Holt on the issues on which the First-tier Tribunal found Dr Holt’s report lacking
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt did report sufficiently on functioning
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence
- Error in failing to take sufficient account of, and to give sufficient weight to, Dr Alachkar’s first two reports
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to evidence from years before Ms H made her CIC claim that showed a lack of day-to-day functioning
- Error in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to the statement of Ms H’s partner
- Error in placing too much weight on the contraceptive implant
- Error in failing to ask Ms H why she has the contraceptive implant
- Error in placing too much weight on the lack of GP entries as to sexual dysfunction
- Error in mischaracterising Ms H’s evidence as to her sexual relationship with her partner and impliedly inferring that she was lying about that relationship
- Error in making a finding not supported by the evidence as to the reason for Ms H stopping driving immediately after passing the driving test
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to Ms H’s reminder to the tribunal that she had grown up at her Nana’s
- Conclusions