Ive got a case where the client had injured his back at work and dwp have decided he has no loss of faculty, he has a pre existing back condition.

He was awarded it for one year, however on the renewal assessment it was decided that "the overall disability is severe. However the fall in 2003 would not have injured a healthy spine"

However prior to the fall the client was carrying out his work without difficulty.

Could anybody who has had similar appeals point me in the right direction to any useful case law in this area.

I'm fairly inexperienced in industrial injuries i would be grateful for any advice/suggestions

Many Thanks

As a starting point paragraph 16 of Commissioner’s decision R(I) 1/81 can be helpful. In this the Commissioner considered that the question for a tribunal was that of:

‘If the relevant accident had not occurred, would the claimant have been subject to all the disablement which we now find to be hers, and if not to what extent would she have been so subject?’

In view of this the reference should be to the individual concerned and whether there was any causation between the accident and the resulting disablement rather to someone with a 'healthy spine'. Combine this with the 'egg shell skull' rule (see any legal website via Google) that injured persons should be taken as they are found, irrespective of any pre-existing condition or weakness, and an assessment arguably ought to be made based around the resulting disablement your client has. If the claimant concerned had no problems immediately before the accident then any pre-existing condition could be seen as a pre-exsting asymptomatic loss of faculty and no offset made.

In practice of course you have to be aware of adjudictors stating that injuries 'brought forward' the onset of conditions which are somehow deemed 'constitutional' in nature and would have happened anyway. The fact that your client had the award for one year and then it was removed suggests that this may be being argued.

It would of course be helpful to get any medical evidence which established that there was still some causation between the accident and the present but, in a case like the one you describe, I would try not to let this become purely a medical issue. If, on the balance of probabilities, your client feels that were it not for the accident they would still be working and in good health then surely the test the Commissioner sets out stands? In other words, if it was not likely or foreseeable that one year on your client would somehow become 'severely disabled overall' then I'd like to think you must win your case. With what certainty can the adjudicator say that within the space of one year an active person would become severely disabled by constitutional factors?

I hope I'm nor being too optimisic, naive or misguided here.

Good luck with your case.

Hello Sahida,
I have a similar case to the one you describe. My client had no previous back injury but the medical examiner has decided that the acccident and the injury are not connected.
Did you manage to find out anything about where the legislation is. I am interested to find out what criteria tehy use and the factors that they have to consider in making their decision.

If I find any information elsewhere in the meantime i will pass the information on.

Thanks
Alex.