[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)

The final ground of appeal concerns the way in which parts of Dr Cahill’s report were taken in a different order by the Tribunal and thereby (so it is said) changing its meaning. I reject this submission. The key finding in Dr Cahill’s report was that the Appellant’s prognosis was “poor”. The Tribunal was well aware of that assessment and indeed quoted directly from it. As such, the present case is far removed from the circumstances obtaining in LM v Secretary of State for Defence. That was a case in which the first instance tribunal misunderstood the expert medical evidence whereas in the present case the Tribunal both understood and reiterated the central point being made by the expert witness. It is plain from the Tribunal’s judgment that it was well aware of the difficulties faced by the Appellant. However, the fact that the prognosis was poor (both when Dr Cahill was reporting in 2017 and indeed when the Tribunal was sitting in 2023) did not necessarily mean that the Appellant’s condition was “permanent” as that term was properly understood.