onclusion
14. In pronouncing my decision at the conclusion of the hearing, I observed that, on careful analysis, the real issue of substance in this appeal concerned the FtT’s consideration of the medical evidence. A n un sophisticated assessment exposes the fact that part of the medical evidence was disregarded by the Judge. While in his decision he refers to a brief letter from a particular medical practitioner, he makes no mention of a second letter written some two weeks earlier by a different practitioner belonging to the same practice. In this earlier letter the doctor confirms that the Appellant’s spouse: “ … has difficulties with her health due to arthritis and osteoporosis that requires the assistance of a carer ie her husband. She would be greatly affected if he was not present to assist her due to her neck and hand problems especially. ” The Judge makes no mention of this evidence. Furthermore, in his decision he suggests that he had “ little medical evidence ” to support the Appellant’s claim that his wife would be unable to live on her own. This does not withstand analysis, since the report which the Judge did consider, contains the following unambiguous statement:
“ She would not be able to cope living in a house on her own. ” These two omissions are of obvious materiality given the Judge’s general ly sceptical attitude regarding the medical issues. 15. Given the above analysis I conclude that the decision of the FtT cannot be sustained. It is infected by a demonstrable failure to consider all the evidence and an associated failure to ensure a fair hearing . The decision is set aside accordingly.