MW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal must weigh all the evidence in the individual case. It may prefer a health professional’s opinion to a claimant’s uncorroborated account, but only after that assessment. It must explain why it rejects the claimant’s account and why it accepts the report.

A formulaic acceptance of a health professional’s report is an error of law. Reasons must address material and substantial criticisms of the report. Under the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, “stand” has its defined meaning rather than its ordinary meaning.

The claimant appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision of 16 January 2015 which upheld a decision awarding only the standard-rate mobility component of personal independence payment. He sought a higher award. The First-tier Tribunal decided the appeal in his absence and accepted a health professional’s report as thorough, without addressing written criticisms submitted for the claimant.

On the claimant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the principal issues were the statutory meaning of “stand”, the treatment of uncorroborated claimant evidence, and whether the First-tier Tribunal had adequately explained its reliance on the health professional’s report.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside for an error of law and the case was remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal for a fresh oral hearing.

2. The challenge based on the ordinary meaning of “stand” failed. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 defines the term as standing upright with at least one biological foot on the ground.

3. There is no requirement that a claimant’s evidence be corroborated. Corroboration may increase its weight, but a tribunal must weigh all the evidence in the individual case. It may prefer expert evidence after that exercise, including because it is more objective or independent. It must not apply a blanket assumption that expert evidence generally outweighs the claimant’s account.

4. A tribunal may accept uncorroborated evidence about functional impairment rather than a health professional’s contrary view. If it rejects the claimant’s account, its reasons must enable the claimant to understand why. A formulaic acceptance of a report, without considering the evidence as a whole, is erroneous.

5. The First-tier Tribunal had described the report as thorough but had not explained what made it reliable or addressed the claimant’s substantial criticisms and apparent internal inconsistencies. Its reasons were therefore inadequate. The fresh tribunal must make its own findings and give reasons, while taking account of the Upper Tribunal’s observations.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): claimant’s appeal allowed; the First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside and remitted for a fresh hearing.
• First-tier Tribunal, Social Entitlement Chamber: on 16 January 2015, it upheld the Secretary of State’s award of the standard-rate mobility component.