[2025] UKUT 85 (AAC)

By its decision of 26 September 2023, the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the basis that:

“[The appellant] who has ADHD did not come within the meaning of severely mentally impaired as defined by ss.73(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and Regulation 12(5).

This is because ADHD does not, according to current medical opinion, arise from “a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain”.

In the statement of reasons for its decision the FTT said the following of relevance:

“8.

The Tribunal found, applying its specialist medical and disability expertise, that the Appellant’s condition, namely Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) did not come within the meaning of severely mentally impaired as defined by ss.73(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and Regulation 12(5).

9.

This is because ADHD does not, according to current medical opinion, arise from “a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain”. The Tribunal found, applying its specialist medical expertise, that ADHD is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. While some studies have found anatomical differences between brain grey and white matter while carrying out specific tasks, the Tribunal was not aware of any authoritative medical research identifying underlying problems with the structure of the brain as the cause of ADHD.

54.

Arrested development need not be limited to the brain but it must have a physical cause; SC v SSWP [2010] UKUT 76 (AAC)…..

55.

ADHD was most recently considered by the Upper Tribunal in CS v [SSWP] UA-2021-SCO-000005-DLA……In that case, however, both parties agreed that the appellant’s combination…of medical conditions met the statutory criteria in Regulation 12(5) of the DLA Regulations…..

62.

[The FTT’s earlier directions had directed the appellant’ representative] to provide a submission as to whether or not ADHD was caused by arrested development or incomplete development of the submission. [The representative’s] submission….neglected to address this point and only reiterated that the Tribunal should look at the effects of the [appellant’s] condition on his behaviour….. [In oral submissions the representative] again said whether the Appellant’s condition was characterised as ADHD or ASD made no difference. The Tribunal disagrees. The relevant Regulation requires that the person “suffers from a state of arrested development of the brain, which results in severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning”. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to show that the Appellant had a condition such as ASD which has been held to fit within the statutory definition.

63.

While the Upper Tribunal suggested that it might be possible for Tribunals to conclude that ADHD falls within the definition in Regulation 12(5) (CDLA/5153/1997), it is implicit that this will require a Tribunal to have specialist and technical medical evidence to support such a finding.

75.

In the absence of specialist and technical medical evidence showing that the present state of medical knowledge makes it possible to attribute ADHD to “a state of arrested development or incomplete development of the brain”, the appeal must fail.”