[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)

It is incumbent upon the FTT to consider all the evidence. It is unclear if the FTT have considered the GP letter and the Radiologist report as noted above, as the written reasons are entirely silent on this issue. Of further significance is the FTT’s failure to adequately explain why it preferred the evidence of the Musculoskeletal report dated November 2022 to that of the claimant’s GP and the Radiologist. This is in error of law. Where, as here, there is a conflict in the evidence the FTT must state which evidence it prefers and why. This was an issue which the FTT should have explored further, making findings of fact rather than simply relying on the Integrated Musculoskeletal Service report. In this regard, in terms of weight to be accorded to specific pieces of evidence, while this is a matter for the primary fact-finding Tribunal, it could be argued the claimant’s GP may have been the health professional who knew the claimant and her condition(s) best. Again, I am not aware of the FTT’s view on this as it is not articulated in it’s written reasons. In my judgment therefore, the FTT was in error of law on a tripartite basis firstly, in failing in its inquisitorial duty to explore the evidence and find the relevant facts, secondly, to resolve the clear conflict in the medical evidence and thirdly, to provide adequate reasons for its decision.