Walther v The Police Medical Appeal Board & Anor

For police injury awards, an injury which accelerates the onset of a permanent disabling condition is not automatically outside the statutory scheme. The question is whether the duty injury caused or substantially contributed to the permanent disablement. Permanence is a quality of the disability, and the period by which the injury accelerated the disability is relevant to whether the contribution was substantial. A short acceleration will often be insufficient, while a significant acceleration may satisfy the statutory test. Each case is fact-sensitive and requires assessment of the medical evidence. There is no bright line between acceleration and aggravation.

The claimant, a former Metropolitan Police officer, sought judicial review of decisions refusing him an injury pension. His back condition had pre-existing degenerative features, but an injury sustained during police training caused a substantial and continuing deterioration and accelerated the onset of disabling symptoms.

The Selected Medical Practitioner and the Police Medical Appeal Board treated the matter as an acceleration case and concluded that the injury had not caused or contributed to permanent disablement. The central issue was whether an injury which accelerates a permanent disability that would have arisen later can satisfy the causation requirement in the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

1. The claim succeeded. The decisions of the Selected Medical Practitioner and the Police Medical Appeal Board were quashed. The pension application was remitted to the Selected Medical Practitioner for reconsideration.
2. Regulation 11 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, read with regulations 7 and 8, requires permanent disablement from ordinary police duties which has been caused or substantially contributed to by an injury received without the officer’s default in the execution of duty.
3. Permanent disablement is an incapacity test. Permanence is a quality of the disability, but the duration for which the disabling condition is brought forward is relevant to causation. A short acceleration is unlikely to amount to a substantial contribution. A significant acceleration may do so, and the dividing line is factual.
4. The approach in Jennings v Humberside Police did not establish that every acceleration case falls outside the Regulations. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R (London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority) v Board of Medical Referees and Another was applicable because the materially equivalent police and fire regulations had the same meaning. There was no bright line between acceleration and aggravation.
5. The Board had adopted the erroneous approach that an acceleration case was necessarily excluded. Its decision therefore could not stand. The medical evidence and the causation question required reconsideration under the correct approach.

Not stated in the judgment.