![[2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Injury
Injury
While (as set out above) sections 108-110 of the SSCBA 1992 deal with benefit for “disease” as being distinct from “personal injury”, it is well established that disease may itself constitute an “injury” for the purposes of section 94(1): see Brintons v Turvey [1905] AC 230 per the Earl of Halsbury LC at 233-234 and CAO v Faulds [2000] 1 WLR 1035 per Lord Hope of Craighead at 1042H-1043A. Accordingly, it is common ground on this appeal that both Alzheimer’s disease and CTE are in principle injuries within the meaning of section 94(1).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforc
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Factual background
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The law
- Industrial injuries benefits for prescribed disease or injury
- Relevant case law relating to IIDB
- Causation
- Injury
- Accident
- The approach of the Upper Tribunal on appeal
- Ground 2 - Failure to address/give reasons for concluding that the other ‘undocumented’ incidents that the Tribunal concluded were an effective cause of the injury were in law “process” rather than pa
- The parties’ submissions
- My conclusions on ground 2
- Ground 1 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned conclusion that the 10 specific documented accidents were not an ‘effective cause’ of the injury
- My conclusions on Ground 1
- Identification of the injury
- Identification of the effective causes
- Identification of the accidents
- Extent of disablement
- Ground 3 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned reliance on family history of cognitive impairment
- My conclusions on Ground 3
- Conclusions