[2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)

I have already dealt above at [88]-[93] with the reasons why in my judgment the Tribunal took the wrong approach to the appellant’s probable Alzheimer’s diagnosis in this case. I have explained there the logical approach that needs to be taken to identifying the injury and then assessing the evidence as to the effective causes of the appellant’s loss of faculty on the balance of probabilities. However, I also accept the appellant’s submission that the Tribunal’s reasoning in relation to the contribution of family history to his loss of faculty was perverse. The Tribunal’s conclusion in that respect was not founded in the evidence.

The evidence as to the claimant’s two older brothers who also had dementia / cognitive impairment was not such that it could reasonably be weighed in the balance as strengthening the case for the appellant’s primary diagnosis being Alzheimer’s. The Tribunal did not, so far as I am aware, have before it any evidence to assist it either way in determining that the appellant’s brothers dementia / cognitive impairment was caused by Alzheimer’s (or only Alzheimer’s) rather than CTE. If anything, what limited evidence the Tribunal had before it as to the appellant’s family history pointed towards professional football being the common denominator between him and his brothers. However, I emphasise that the evidence was “limited”. More detail would have been required about the appellant’s brother’s conditions and his wider family before any firm conclusions could properly be drawn. As it stands, however, I am satisfied that the Tribunal’s reasoning on this issue was perverse.