Metropolitan Police Authority v Laws & Anor

On a periodic review of a police injury pension under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, the finality of earlier medical determinations extends to the essential clinical judgments on which they rest. The reviewing medical decision-maker must determine whether the degree of disablement has substantially changed since the last determination. It cannot reassess the earlier clinical basis simply because it would now reach a different view.

Earning capacity is assessed objectively under the Regulations and may be affected by external changes, including new skills. Any resulting effect on earning capacity must nevertheless be assessed on the facts. Final determinations remain susceptible to judicial review for material legal error.

The claimant, a former police officer injured on duty, received a police injury pension assessed at 85% disablement following a 2005 review. In 2008, the Selected Medical Practitioner reduced the assessment to 25%, relying on, among other matters, the claimant’s law degree and an assessment that she could work 30 hours each week. The Police Medical Appeal Board dismissed her appeal.

Cox J allowed the claimant’s judicial review claim and quashed both decisions. The Metropolitan Police Authority appealed. The central issue was whether a review under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 permitted the medical decision-makers to reconsider the clinical foundation of the 2005 assessment, rather than deciding whether disablement had substantially altered since that assessment.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Laws LJ gave the judgment, with Munby and Black LJJ agreeing.

1. Regulations 30(6) and 31(3) make final not merely the percentage assessment of disablement, but the decision on the questions referred to the Selected Medical Practitioner or determined by the Board. That finality includes the essential clinical judgments supporting the assessment. Regulation 37(1) therefore requires the decision-maker to take the earlier determination as given and decide only whether the degree of disablement has substantially altered since then.
2. The Board had impermissibly revisited the severity and consequences of the original injury. Its reasoning questioned earlier findings about the injury, pathology and improvement since 1998, rather than identifying a material change since the 2005 review. Its decision could not stand. The 2008 decision of the Selected Medical Practitioner was flawed for the same reason and was also properly quashed.
3. The court approved the approach in Turner [2009] EWHC Admin 1867 as to finality. A review cannot reduce or increase a pension because the decision-maker has changed its mind about an earlier clinical finding that drove the previous award.
4. The judge had, however, erred in treating the claimant’s law degree as irrelevant. Under Regulation 7(5), the issue is the actual impact of the duty injury on earning capacity as found at the review date. New skills may affect that capacity, although their practical significance will depend on concrete employment prospects. The judge was also wrong to characterise as irrational the Board’s conclusion that the claimant could work 30 hours per week; that was a judgment supported by the Selected Medical Practitioner. Neither error affected the dismissal of the appeal.

The claimant’s pension accordingly remained assessed at 85% pending a lawful future review under Regulation 37(1).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the Metropolitan Police Authority’s appeal and upheld the quashing of the 2008 decisions: [2010] EWCA Civ 1099.
• Administrative Court (Queen’s Bench Division) — Cox J allowed the claimant’s judicial review claim and quashed the decisions of the Police Medical Appeal Board and the Selected Medical Practitioner.