Hi everyone, a big ask here...
I have a client, a young man who had an Industrial Accident, was run over by 7 ton JCB in 2006, had massive internal injuries including a 360 degree pelvic damage injury requiring the insertion of 7 plates. He was assessed as 70% disabled at the outset. He was recently reviewed and has had reduction to 50%. He has loads of medical support, reports from GP, psychologist, independent assessor for compo claim. The assessor gave the following:
20% spinal disability....client is on MRC and HRM DLA, walks with a stick, in severe pain at all times.
20% for incontinence....he was previously assessed at 30%, the latest assessor says the first over assessed him and he describes the incontinence effect as 'mildly disabling'.
5% for impotency.... Absolutely no sexual function even when medication given.

Client suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, diagnosed by GP, suffers flashbacks and nightmares, very depressed, in constant pain. He won't form relationships due to impotency, becoming very withdrawn.

Has anyone been to IIDB appeal on any of the above reasons as i want to try to get award back to original but find the fact the EMP's decide themselves on %age disablement rather difficult to argue against. If anyone has any favourable decisions i would be mega grateful if you could email me on [email protected].

Here's hoping.

I used to do Industrial Injuries appeals quite a lot at one time and found that if I had a lot of very good medical evidence, especially in a case such as this, the tribunal was likely to be sympathetic. Ad it's such a long time since I have done an IIDB tribunal I don't know what they're like these days, but your client seems to be so substantially disabled taht I think they are likely to be sympathetic, and if you have a great deal of good medical evidence they will have to give good reasons not to take notice of it, thereby giving you a route to commissioners if needed. I take it the client is going to the tribunal?

You might want to have a look at R(I)4/94 which is a case with similar facts by the sounds of it, and goes into great detail about how subsequent mental health issues should be dealt with. The Commissioner directs the new tribunal to consider at the following:

30. Assuming that the MAT find, like the previous MAT, that the relevant injury was fractured pelvis, that the claimant’s sole disability were impaired locomotion and urinary symptoms and that she suffers from a painful back and bladder problems and in addition from a mental condition which arose after the accident, three questions of causation relating to the mental condition arise:
(a) is the mental condition to be included in the relevant loss of faculty resulting in the disability? or
(b) if not, and the relevant loss of faculty was solely the painful back and bladder problems, was the mental condition another effective cause of the disability? or
(c) was the mental condition neither, being entirely unconnected with the disability?

I can't find a copy of this on the OSSC website for some reason, it just keeps crashing. I think you could also argue that the combination of impairment experienced by your client should be assessed as greater than simply adding up the assessed percentages, due to the complex interactions being more disabling than if each is taken as standing alone.

It is helpful to identify all of the individual losses of faculty and resulting disablements as, in theory at least, the client can score an assessment for each disability.

In an SDA appeal many years ago, did just that and came up with 45 or so individual disablements. The sub that I wrote for that was extraordinarily successful and I've used it as a basis for all medical assessment cases since then.

It is also helpful to compare the level of disablement with the fixed assessments in the schedule. What follows is the extract from the aforementioned sub showing how I approached it in that case:


 The following are quoted as comparator percentage assessment guides to Mr K’s disabilities as stated above. Commissioners, in dealing with SDA/IIDB cases have taken a similar approach.

 All but six of those disabilities stated above can be found in the papers. There are 45. If each were to be given two percentage points, equivalent to the loss of a finger tip (no bone), a very minor level of disability, it adds up to 90%.

 The last AMA assessment (20%) only adds up to the loss of the big toe at the end joint and two thirds of middle finger. Mr K’s disabilities, in my view, clearly go beyond this level of disability.

 Appendix 3 of the now discontinued Handbook for AMA’s gives the following scores as guidance for Ankyloses (loss of movement of a joint):
o Shoulder40%
o Elbow 40%
o Wrist 30%
o Hip 60%
o Knee 30%
o Ankle 20%
If it were assumed that Mr K’s disabilities were equal to 50% partial loss of movement, then in joints stated as affected in the ‘loss of faculty’ section above, the assessment would amount to 95%. This assessment would of course cover none of the mental disabilities.

 The schedule to reg.11 SS(general)benefit regs. 1982, gives a percentage assessment of 60% for loss of ONE hand. Given the severely reduced functioning of Mr K's hands (not forgetting that his condition affects both hands), this assessment would represent a reasonable starting point for dealing with the reduced functioning of his hands.

 Similarly, the schedule gives a percentage assessment of 40% for loss of one leg below the knee. This would be an equally good starting point for assessing Mr K’s disabilities in respect of walking and standing.

 the decision R(I)34/61 reflects the fact that an assessment of 100% does not reflect total disability.

Thanks for all the replies, i'll let you all know if its successful.

Hi everyone, appeal successful, benefit reinstated to previous rate. Panel also said he could gain even more if he agreed to attend a medical. Client says process so stressful he is leaving it be. Thanks for all your help.