EP v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) (War pensions and armed forces compensation : War pensions - assessment)

Decision: � My decision is that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. I set aside the tribunal�s decision and remit the case for hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

This is an appeal brought with the permission of Judge Lane against the decision of a tribunal sitting on 25 September 2015 upholding an interim assessment of disablement of 6-14% in respect of post traumatic stress disorder, accepted as being due to service.� In a submission dated 26 May 2016, the Secretary of State�s representative has accepted that the decision of the tribunal was wrong in law for the reason I discuss in paragraphs 9 and 10 below, but has submitted that the tribunal�s decision was nevertheless supported by the evidence for the reasons which the tribunal gave.

2.� The claimant was an airframe fitter in the Royal Air Force between 9 July 1979 and 4 March 1993, when he was discharged as being below required medical standards.� He served in the Falklands during the conflict in 1984 and claims to have been a witness to the immediate aftermath of an accident in which a person whom he had known at university was killed and horrifically mutilated after coming into contact with the blades of a Chinook helicopter.� In 1987 and again in 1988 the claimant fortuitously escaped being a passenger on helicopters which crashed with fatal consequences.

3.� The claimant was visited by Combat Stress Community Outreach team members on 29 February 2012, 17 February 2012 and 17 April 2012 and underwent an intensive treatment programme for PTSD between February and April 2013. On 15 February 2013 the claimant made a war pension claim in respect of post traumatic stress disorder, which was treated as effective from 15 January 2013.� The Falklands incident was initially disputed, but was later accepted after the submission by the claimant of further evidence.�

4.� The claimant was referred to a regional consultant, who examined him on 16 January 2015.� The claimant has encephalitis, Guillain Barre Syndrome and diabetes, which affect his mobility, but in relation to the claimant�s mental state the regional consultant reported as follows: