|
Mon 21-Feb-05 12:28 PM by ken
Commissioner Turnbull has given a decision in a case taken by LASA's appeal team (CIB/3104/2004). The principle issue was whether the claimant's drug rehabilitation programme could bring him within Reg 27(d) of the IFW Regs (the pre-Howker/Moule form of what is now Reg 27(2)(c)).
Commissioner Turnbull does stress that he is giving no guidance to a Tribunal on whether a drug rehab programme is a major therapeutic procedure (because there were insufficient facts relevant to the issue in the case before him). However, the decision may still be helpful to those who wish to argue that rehab does constitute a major therapeutic procedure (as this was the issue on which the case was remitted for further findings to be made and the Commissioner accepts the Tribunal erred in law:
"In my judgment the Tribunal erred in law in not sufficiently indicating whether it had specifically addressed its mind to the question whether the rehabilitation programme fell within Reg. 27(d)"
The Commissioner referred the case to a new Tribunal to decide the issue following the guidance in CIB/4034/2000 and CIB/14667/1996.
The Commissioner also dealt with the meaning for two mental health descriptors (15(b) (at para 9) and 17(d)(at para 13)) in a way which may be helpful, although it is clear that the comments in relation to 17(d) are obiter.
Martin.
| 
