[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)

The reasons challenge fares no better. On one reading it must surely stand or fall with the first two grounds of appeal. Insofar as it is a freestanding ground of appeal, the relevant standard for adequacy of reasons is not in dispute and was helpfully described by Upper Tribunal Judge Poole QC (as she then was) in DS v SSWP (ESA) [2019] UKUT 347 (AAC). There, she said that the question is whether the first instance tribunal “deal with the substantial questions in an intelligible way, leaving the informed reader in no real and substantial doubt as to the reasons for the decision and what material considerations were taken into account” (at paragraph [9]). On any fair reading the Tribunal’s reasons in this case comfortably meet that threshold. In short, and in summary, the Tribunal found that the previous treatment undergone by the Appellant was insufficient to show permanence. Instead, the Tribunal concluded there were further treatment options reasonably open to the Appellant before it could be said that he had achieved a state of “maximum medical improvement” as envisaged by the test for permanence.