The tribunal dismissed an appeal by the woman – whose identity is protected – to keep benefits which she had obtained between August 2015 and March 2018 after it heard from a series of witnesses who had seen her living an apparently normal life in spite of the claims she had made to staff at the Social Security Department.
One witness, a customer where the woman worked and an employee of the Social Security Department, saw the woman ‘using two crutches, moving slowly and [apparently] in a great deal of pain’ when she visited the department. Having never noticed anything wrong with her physically at work, the customer told the tribunal that ‘he could not believe what he saw as she was limping and looked very unwell’.
Another witness, a colleague, told the tribunal that the woman worked six days a week without giving any indication of
being unwell. However, one day she noticed two walking sticks at work and was told that the woman was suffering from a bad back and had to visit Social Security.
The sticks reappeared a few months later when the woman was making a return visit to the department although on both occasions she appeared quite normal the following day. The witness said she thought the woman was ‘making up’ her illness.
The tribunal heard that the case had its origins in a car accident which took place in 2001 but the benefits at issue related to medical assessments made in 2015 and 2017.
Although on these occasions the woman was assessed at 85% benefit for spinal and lower limb, right shoulder and cerebral impairment, the assessments were reduced to zero when witnesses later cast doubt on her disability. In a separate decision the woman was then required to repay the benefits received between August 2015 and March 2018.
When the woman disputed the revised assessment, a medical practitioner who reviewed the case concluded that she should have received 15% of the benefit and should, therefore, repay the balance on that basis.
However, the woman took her case to the medical tribunal to appeal against that decision.
In its judgment, tribunal chairwoman Advocate Sarah Fitz said that they concluded that the fresh evidence was more than sufficient to indicate that the woman had misrepresented her condition at the assessments in August 2015 and 2017, and they upheld the revised assessment of 15% benefit, directing that she should repay the balance.
