The appellant appealed against a finding that he was not disabled under the Act. He had been a soldier in action and many years later, he suffered flash backs and claimed post traumatic stress disorder. Doctors differed in their diagnosis, and in the standards they used, ICD-10 and DSM-IV. The tribunal failed properly to recognise the differences in the classifications, and in the standings of the two criteria, and the decision was fatally flawed. It is the not the function of the medical practitioner to give an opinion on either the adverse effect of day to day activities or whether any such effect is substantial
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson
EAT/1073/00, [2001] UKEAT 1073 – 00 – 0308
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Noted – C A Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 23-Aug-1999
When assessing disability, the tribunal should be careful not to think that disability would necessarily be evidenced by some physical sign, such as dependence upon a wheelchair. The large majority of the disabled would not meet such an assessment, . .
See Also – London General Transport Service Ltd Blackledge v London General Transtoet Service Ltd A P Blackledge EAT 23-May-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Cited by:
See Also – London General Transport Service Ltd Blackledge v London General Transtoet Service Ltd A P Blackledge EAT 23-May-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.168295