[2025] UKUT 326 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2024-001710-PIP

In The Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

Between:

LB

Appellant

-v-

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Sue Blackshaw, Derbyshire County Council

Respondent: Clare Keates, Decision Making and Appeals (DMA) Leeds

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No.: SC319/23/02036

Digital Case No.: 1697311749672389

Tribunal Venue: Nottingham

Decision Date: 7 August 2024

SUMMARY OF DECISION

41.1 Personal Independence Payment: general

This appeal highlights the danger of a tribunal drawing inferences from evidence of the medical treatment that a claimant has received (or has not received) as to the degree of a claimant’s likely symptoms and any consequent functional limitations.

The Upper Tribunal says that while the drawing of such inferences will not always be impermissible, a tribunal relying on such inferences would be wise to direct itself as to the risks associated with doing so, and to give a careful explanation of its decision making in that regard.

The appeal relates to a PIP claim, but the principles apply equally to other benefits. It confirms the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Judge Poynter) in MM v SSWP (ESA) [2018] UKUT 446 (AAC).

Please note that the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION