[2025] UKUT 037 (AAC)

The tribunal considered the evidence and the submissions having regard to the requirements of tariff Table 3. The tribunal was satisfied on the evidence that the appellant has functional limitation due to the accepted condition. He left service in 2017 and continued to have treatment for PTSD post service with V1P [Veterans First Point]. The tribunal accepted that there was evidence contained in the SOC [Statement of Case] that entitled it to reach the view that the due to treatment both in service and after service the appellant’s condition has improved however the condition has continued for five years and fluctuates. The tribunal noted that the appellant has continued with the same antidepressant treatment for several years which reduces his symptoms. The appellant said that he was waiting for a psychiatric referral which he suggested had been outstanding for a couple of years. At his most recent G.P. appointment, the patient did not ask for the referral to be followed up and his G.P. did not refer to any outstanding referral in her most recent report which had been added to the SOC. In his evidence the appellant was unclear about how the psychiatric assessment might be progressed and had taken no steps to chase it up. The appellant had previously disengaged with treatment and said that with hindsight he might have benefitted further treatment. The appellant ruled out changing his current medication even though that might enable him to be considered for a flying role. The tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence supported a finding that the appellant has a permanent mental disorder.

It was clear from listening to the appellant that he is very proud of his military achievements and not being able to fly has been a source of sadness and disappointment for him. The appellant referred broadly to some previous military colleagues’ progress post service and he compares his civilian role less favourably to theirs. Such comparisons cannot be considered by the tribunal reaching a decision which must be decided on the evidence.

In considering the submissions from Ms Gale that the appellant had a permanent mental disorder (either severe or moderate), the tribunal decided that the test of permanence had not been met on the evidence. There was an initial course of EMDR in service with a CPN with reported benefit. The second planned trauma focused treatment in 2020 did not take place and in the view of the therapist at the time was necessary to address symptoms of PTSD and functioning (SOC 128). The appellant has been referred by his GP to an NHS consultant psychiatrist for assessment around any further requirement for treatment but this has not taken place. For these reasons the tribunal did not find that appropriate clinical management of adequate duration had taken place thus far or that no further improvement is expected.

25.The degree of functional limitation or restriction is not such to bring the appellant into items 1 or 2 on Table 3. The appellant gave evidence that he is working in a management role. The tribunal noted that the appellant has been employed by the Civil Aviation Board since 2020. He gave evidence about the nature of his employment which the tribunal decided was one with a significant degree of responsibility and oversight.

For the above reasons, the tribunal decided that the appellant’s condition is correctly placed on table 3 item 4 level 10.