i've just picked up a case from a colleague who has left and having just had a brief time to look into it could do with some suggestions.

Its an Industrial Injuries case. had numerous assessments over the years with 30%. Since then, by a long winded process, further reports were obtained which semed to be saying that there was no physical injury attributable to the acident any more, having now cleared up, but that he appeared to have developed Chronic Pain Syndrome.

Can I argue that the CPS is attributable to the accident, being as it is clearly linked to the actual pain that had been caused by the accident. The reports do accept that its a genuine illness as its not conscious.

Any help greatly appreciated.

R(I)4/94 is probably the best starting point in terms of clarifying what can be included in the assessment. (this refers to where a disability such as depression or psychological conditions arose subsequent to an accident - not quite the same - but there's a useful explanation of the assessment forms, and terminology)

CPS is a tricky condition and i've been frustrated by the lack of available information for the layperson. you might need to be careful around the argument that it is clearly linked to the actual pain caused by the accident, or rather, the use of language in the argument put forward - the thing about CPS is that "there is no direct or necessary link between the extent of injury or tissue damage and the perception of pain."

i obtained an incredibly helpful report (in terms of better understanding this condition) from a consultant in pain management for a DLA client, which i can't circulate without infringing the author's copyright, unfortunately. but it might possibly be very useful in preparing for your case. if you would like me to send you a copy let me know your fax no.

jj

Thanks JJ. If you can send me the report without infringing your client's confidentiality I would like to see it. Fax no is 0116 2559493.

I wasn't going to argue that the extent of the CPS was connected to the accident, just that the disease itself was and therefore arose out of and in the course of employment.

Will have a look at that Comms decision.

sent. did you get it ok?

for numerous reasons, i'd be glad if you'd let me know what you think of the report generally...

my e-mail's janjesson@snlc.org.uk