Judgment No. 4904
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to recognise that he was suffering from disability.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
medical board; invalidity; complaint dismissed
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ccording to [the Tribunal's] case law, while it may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4709, consideration 4, 4585, consideration 10, 4473, consideration 13, 4237, consideration 5, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709
Keywords
medical board; invalidity; judicial review; role of the tribunal
Consideration 9
Extract:
The “supplementary report” drawn up in response to [the] request on 15 March 2021 shows that this document was drafted by the rapporteur doctor alone. However, this “supplementary report” was not a medical opinion for the purposes of AC 14. It merely recalled the findings of the certificates drawn up by Drs G. and R., as well as those of the report of the panel of doctors, and provided legal clarifications so as to better inform the JARDB as to the difference between “incapacity for work” within the meaning of paragraph 17 of AC 14 and Annex 2 thereto and “deterioration of physical or mental health” within the meaning of paragraph 19 of AC 14 and Annex 3 thereto. This document therefore merely summarised some evidence in the file and explained the relevant legal concepts, and did not alter the panel’s medical assessment itself. There was therefore no breach of the principle of collegiality of the panel of doctors.
Keywords
medical board; medical opinion
|
