Looking for a copy of this decision - fax (01325)254296

Thanks

Mike

Welfare Rights Bulletin carried a summary of it and also did one of a similar decision CIB/407/1998, but they did not as far as I know publish the full decisions.

You might find an alternative with R(DLA)3/99 (formerly CSDLA/856/1997 because the Commissioner held, allowing the appeal, that:
1. there was no indication in the findings or reasons that the tribunal had addressed the evidence of deterioration given by the claimant, and as they had not indicated whether or not it was accepted and whether, if accepted, it was considered to be immaterial to their decision, their decision must be set aside (paragraph 6);

2. neither CDLA/692/1994 nor CM/361/1992 nor paragraph 7 of CDLA/148/1994 could be considered authority for the proposition that evidence from an examining medical practitioner must of necessity
prevail over that led by the claimant (paragraph 11);

3. such evidence might prevail in the majority of cases once the tribunal had carried out the weighing exercise that they were required to carry out but that did not mean that as a matter of course th examining medical practitioner’s evidence must prevail because it would fly in the face of the obligation of a tribunal to consider the whole evidence in a case if they accepted one body of evidence on the basis that it must normally prevail over other evidence in the case (paragraph 11);

4. in this case, the tribunal had not failed to weigh up the evidence as they were required to do because the examining medical practitioner had in effect indicated why there was a conflict between his assessment and the claimant’s, the tribunal were right to accept that he was an independent examiner and, in those circumstances, they were not required to give any further explanation for accepting his
evidence (paragraph 12).

The Commissioner referred the case to a freshly constituted tribunal.