Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(AF)5/07
File Number:	CAF 857 2006
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	02/04/2007
Date Added:	10/05/2007
Main Category:	War pensions and armed forces compensation
Main Subcategory:	Procedure
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	War disablement pension – commencement date of award on review – official error – reliance on erroneous medical advice The claimant was medically discharged from the Royal Air Force in 1965 on a diagnosis of “simple schizophrenia” and was notified that his deemed claim for war disablement pension had been refused on the ground that his condition was not attributable to or aggravated by service. In 2004 that decision was reviewed and he was awarded a war disablement pension from 1 February 1976 for the condition of “depressive episode” accepted as attributable to service. The review decision cited R v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Edwards (10 July 1992) (CO/2281/90) as authority for treating 1 February 1976 as the date when medical opinion changed in respect to the link between schizophrenia and ordinary life events. He appealed on the issue of the commencement date. No evidence of the development of medical opinion was provided for the tribunal and it dismissed his appeal, simply recording its agreement with the Secretary of State’s written reasons for choice of commencement date. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. in the absence of any references to the relevant scientific material in the statement of case the tribunal’s statement of reasons in this case was manifestly inadequate (paragraph 12); 2. if the stated basis of the review decision as a change in medical opinion within paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 was correct, the award should have been backdated by no more than three years under paragraph 6(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (paragraph 16); 3. however, the acceptance of the condition of “depressive episode” made it improbable that the review in this case was connected to the development of scientific understanding in relation to the severity of stress required to precipitate schizophrenia and backdating was possible only if there was reliance on erroneous medical advice constituting “official error” within sub-paragraph 6A of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (paragraphs 17 and 18); 4. the question of whether the decision arose from an official error must be decided on the basis of medical knowledge as it was at the time the decision was made (R v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Foe (7 November 1995) followed) and applying the standards to be expected of a reasonably competent medical practitioner in the light of psychiatric knowledge in 1965, it would be necessary to demonstrate some clear and obvious mistake which resulted in the decision refusing entitlement (R(SB) 2/93 and R(H) 2/04 followed) (paragraphs 19 to 21). The Commissioner remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(AF)_5-07_bvam.doc