[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)

Ms H appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.

In directions dated 25 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal told Ms H that it would assist that tribunal if, when obtaining a diagnosis of mental injury by a professional psychiatrist or psychologist, Ms H’s full GP records could be sent to that psychiatrist or psychologist, along with a copy of the expert questions enclosed by the tribunal with those directions (pages TD1 to TD3). Ms H obtained and supplied to the First-tier Tribunal a report dated 28 May 2023 (from a clinic of 15 May 2023) from Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Claudia Murton (pages TG08 to TG13). Dr Murton had already seen Ms H by the time the First-tier Tribunal gave the 25 May 2023 directions. In directions dated 28 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal decided, having seen Dr Murton’s report, that it was necessary for Ms H to be assessed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who would review her medical records and answer specific questions posed by the First-tier Tribunal. The directions ordered CICA to obtain such a report (pages TD4 and TD5). The questions the First-tier Tribunal required CICA to put to the expert were enclosed with those directions (page TD6). CICA commissioned the report from a female doctor, Dr Holt. There were other medical, psychiatric and psychological reports in the papers too. They included three reports from a Dr Alachkar.

At the First-tier Tribunal hearing, CICA’s representative Ms McNally accepted that Dr Holt’s report on page C359 is evidence of permanence in accordance with Note 2 to the scheme (written reasons, paragraph 13). Ms McNally also accepted that what Dr Holt’s report said on page C360 supported a claim for loss of earnings (written reasons, paragraph 14). Ms McNally further told the First-tier Tribunal that “she agreed with the Appellant (TG29) that symptoms have impacted upon paid employment up to 1/03/2058 (retirement age)” (written reasons, paragraph 14).

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, increasing the award to disabling mental injury lasting five years or more but not permanent, level A9, £13,500 x 100%. The First-tier Tribunal said (in a decision notice starting on a second page numbered TD1)—

“We found Miss [H] suffered a disabling mental injury following the Index Abuse which is not permanent within Note 2 to Mental Injury of the Scheme 2012. While there is medical opinion that Miss [H]’s symptoms would improve with appropriate treatment, we found, it is highly improbable that Miss [H] would engage in appropriate treatment whether NHS or private. In any event, appropriate treatment would be available through the NHS. We make no award for Special Expenses under Paragraphs 51 and 52.

We make no award for Loss of Earnings, past or future.”.

In its written reasons, the First-tier Tribunal said, among other things—

“49.

Given the Appellant was highly selective as to which professional and when she disclosed disabling symptoms consistent with PTSD, we found it difficult to exclude the real possibility that she was motivated by potential financial compensation gain with associated risk of inconsistencies as to the actual level of her day-to-day function.”.