![[2024] UKUT 170 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Secretary of State’s decision on the Appellant’s AFCS claim
The Secretary of State’s decision on the Appellant’s AFCS claim
On 9 April 2019 Veterans UK wrote to the Appellant to notify him of their decision that “you are not entitled to compensation under the Scheme as your injury/illness is not due to Service”. The very brief reason for the rejection of the claim, as recorded on the contemporaneous lay certificate, was as follows:
[Col C] has been diagnosed with melanoma on his upper back and right calf. Although he may have been exposed to increased UV radiation through service, the areas affected would not have been exposed during military service etc. It is noted that he had excessive sun exposure as a child. As such this claim falls for rejection.
It is perhaps only right at this stage to note that the FTT subsequently discounted the effects of UVR exposure as a child as a potentially causative factor.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal issued on 4 January 2021, following the hearing on 21 December 2020 under file number A
- Introduction
- A very brief outline of the factual background to the appeal
- The Appellant’s AFCS claim
- The Secretary of State’s decision on the Appellant’s AFCS claim
- The Appellant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal appeal
- The AFCS legislative framework
- The role of appellate review in appeals from a specialist first instance jurisdiction
- Ground 1
- The First-tier Tribunal’s approach to making findings on the basis of its own knowledge
- The Appellant’s other main written submissions in the context of Ground 1
- The Appellant’s other main oral submissions in the context of Ground 1
- Ground 3
- The non-fault based nature of the AFCS
- The causation test and JM v Secretary of State for Defence
- Key points from the three-judge panel’s decision in JM v Secretary of State for Defence
- The First-tier Tribunal’s approach to the decision in JM v SSD
- The Appellant’s challenge to the FTT’s approach to the decision in JM v SSD
- Pulling the threads together
- Conclusions