Does anyone have a copy of this decision which I understand says

“The adjudicating authorities must consider all the evidence, medical and non-medical, in deciding whether a claimant is ‘disabled physically or mentally’. They should consider the manifestations of a condition and the actions and the abilities of the claimant together with any other evidence. The fact that no diagnosis had, or had yet, been made, or that no label had been given or had yet been invented for the condition, did not deprive the adjudicating authorities of their jurisdiction or remove their responsibility to decide the issue. It was for them, not for an external expert, to decide whether a claimant was ‘disabled physically or mentally’.”


Thanks,

Paul.

Searching on our CD-Rom gives

CDLA 1659/1997
"8. In order to decide whether a claimant is "disabled physically or mentally" the tribunal must take into account all relevant medical and other evidence. It would be wrong to reach a conclusion on this without doing so or to treat it as a preliminary issue in the sense of disregarding the evidence as to the effect of the claimed difficulties or problems. A medical report describing or confirming a well established or well known diagnosis (such as "fractured leg" or "severe learning difficulties") or a "clinically well-recognised illness" (the words of paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) might settle this particular issue. However, that does not mean that the absence of such a report, diagnosis or illness must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the words of the statute do not apply. The state of medical knowledge is neither certain nor static. The tribunal should consider the manifestations of a condition and the actions and abilities of the claimant together with any other evidence. The fact that no diagnosis has or has yet been made, or that no label has been given or has yet been invented for the condition, does not deprive the tribunal of its jurisdiction and responsibility to decide the issue. It is for the tribunal, and not for an external expert, to decide whether the claimant is "disabled physically or mentally". In particular, it would be unjust to have different results in two cases, one where the evidence of specific manifestations has been presented to the tribunal without a label, and one where evidence of the same manifestations has been presented together with a label. Sometimes the label is assigned or confirmed or the diagnosis is made after the tribunal hearing although there is no new substantive evidence as to medical investigations or behaviour or manifestation of the condition. The result of the appeal in such cases should not depend on whether the tribunal happens to sit before or after this is done."

CDLA 948/2000
"24. The representative of the secretary, of state has contended that the establishment of a disability caused by a medically recognised. physical or mental condition is an essential prerequisite for the award of either component of disability living allowance. It appears to me to follow from the decisions cited above that, except to the extent that there must be physical disablement for the purposes of higher rate mobility, the cause of the disability, is not decisive. This also follows from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Levenson in the common appendix to CDLA/15467/1996, CDLA/16176/1996. CDLA/1659/1997 and CDLA/2252/1997. Mr. Commissioner Levenson held that the words "physically" and "mentally" were ordinary words of the English language to be understood in the ordinary way by members of the tribunal, although to be applied in the way required by law, and that the focus of section 72 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 was on the needs of claimants and on their ability to cope without assistance, rather than on any specific diagnosis. At paragraph 8 of the appendix, the commissioner stated

"In order to decide whether a claimant is "disabled physically or mentally" the tribunal must take into account all relevant medical and other evidence... A medical report describing or confirming a well established or well known diagnosis ... or a "clinically well-recognised illness"... might settle this particular issue. However, that does not mean that the absence of such a report, diagnosis or illness must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the words of the statute do not apply. The state of medical knowledge is neither certain nor static. The tribunal should consider the manifestations of a condition and the actions and abilities of the claimant together with any other evidence. The fact that no diagnosis has or has yet been made, or that no label has been given or has yet been invented for the condition, does not deprive the tribunal of its jurisdiction and responsibility to decide the issue. It is for the tribunal, and not for an external expert, to decide whether the claimant "is disabled physically or mentally".

25. I agree with that statement of law, and it should be adopted by the new tribunal determining this case."

CDLA 944/2001
Etc.

Although Commissioner Turnbull in CDLA/4400/2001 holds that there is a requirement for a decision maker or a tribunal to confirm that a claimant is suffering from a medically recognised physical or mental condition he does still conclude that this does –

'… not necessarily mean that a tribunal has to be in a position to identify which of a number of possibly applicable medically recognised conditions the Claimant is suffering from, provided that it is satisfied that he is suffering from one or more of them and can give cogent reasons for that conclusion. It is not even absolutely necessary that it decide (save possibly in relation to the higher rate of the mobility component) as between a possibly applicable mental condition and a possibly applicable physical condition, provided it is satisfied that the claimant is suffering from one or other, and can give cogent reasons for that conclusion. Further, it is not absolutely necessary, it seems to me, that there be medical evidence specifically diagnosing a medically recognised physical or mental condition. It is possible, although I imagine that such cases would be rare, that a tribunal could validly conclude that a claimant is suffering from a medically recognised condition without a medically qualified person having made a diagnosis to that effect or indeed without there being any medical evidence at all.'