The claimant argued disability discrimination and successfully contended before the ET that he satisfied the definition of a disabled person by reason of the long-term effects of mental impairment.  The ET had not given any directions for expert medical evidence but instead relied on the claimant’s own testimony and contemporaneous medical documentation.

It was argued by the respondent that the ET should not have determined the question of disability in the absence of proper medical evidence. Furthermore, it argued that finding the claimant disabled based merely on the length of time he had suffered impairment rather than considering the effect of the impairment on his ability to carry out his standard duties was erroneous.

The EAT allowed the appeal as the ET had unduly focused on the length of time the condition had lasted rather than the question of its effect.  The ET had incorrectly assumed that if a medical condition lasted over 12 months there was no need then assess the effects of that condition. The case was remitted for the legal point to be considered afresh by a differently constituted ET.

Practical Lessons

The EAT here was predominantly concerned with the second ground of appeal concerning whether the ET had improperly considered only the duration of the claimant’s condition and the chance of reoccurrence. This decision makes it clear that the proper role of an ET includes not only consideration of these factors, but also stating what conclusions it draws as to the effect of a claimant’s condition.

It is interesting to note that the EAT alluded to the fact that the ET’s failure to properly carry out this task may have been linked to the absence of medical evidence in the first place. Irrespective of the weight attached to it, it must follow that the existence of expert medical evidence will assist a tribunal in carrying out the task and the EAT here is saying it must do. The exact effect on an employee’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and whether it is both substantial and long-term is often extremely difficult to gauge. If such medical evidence is not a feature of an ET case, the losing side may well justifiably rely on the absence of such probative information as an appeal point.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0065_17_1007.html