[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)

This is likely to be a relatively small cohort.

These are not concerns unique to a need for treatment postdating a claimant’s departure from Great Britain. Decision makers already need to make evaluative judgements on issues of intention to return, extension for a relevant bereavement, and indeed whether a given absence is solely in connection with medical treatment: cf. NJ (ESA).

Compelling evidence is likely to be required in any case to which the provision applies. A claimant’s contention that it was medical treatment that delayed his or her return are apt to be carefully scrutinised. This is precisely the sort of case where supporting documentary evidence can be readily expected of a claimant.

The Secretary of State is of course entitled to adopt a precautionary approach and has powers to suspend benefit under Part 5 of the Decisions and Appeals Regulations in order to conduct enquiries. On the claimant’s side, the safeguards of revision and appeal are available in the event of refusal. The Secretary of State is entitled to test robustly a claimant’s evidence at any hearing and make representations if the refusal is challenged.

The critical distinction between medical absence connected to a disabled person’s health and other absences Contrary to the Secretary of State’s concern about policy implications for the other permitted absence periods, there is no reason for there to be any broader impact.