REPORT OF THE SELECTED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER

SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE

POLICE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS - 2006

NEW INJURY AWARD / REVIEW OF INJURY AWARD

Part A

I have considered the medical history of...... ……………………….

And also a report from...... of...... ……

And injury reports dated...... ……..

...... ……..

I most recently reviewed this case on …...... ………………

It is my opinion that this officer / retired officer is -Injury on DutyIs the condition

(See over for guidance)likely to be permanent?

(See over for guidance)

Suffering from (A)...... ……. YES/NO YES/NO

Suffering from (B)...... ……. YES/NO YES/NO

Suffering from (C)...... …… YES/NO YES/NO

The degree to which the officer’s earning capacity has been affected by the qualifying injury is...... %

The Police Authority will review this Injury on Duty award at such intervals as may be suitable. The Police Authority can review the Injury Award at any reasonable interval in accordance with the provisions of the Police Injury Benefit Regulations 2006

I certify that the above information is correct

Signed...... ………………………………………….Print Name……………………………

Qualifications...... Date......

Part B

The Medical Advisor’s opinion is acknowledged

Signed...... Date......

Designation......

Extracted from Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and Home Office Guidance

Injury On Duty

  • Injury includes any injury or disease, whether of body or mind
  • The disablement is deemed to be the result of an injury if the injury caused or substantially contributed to the disablement
  • It is necessary to establish a direct causal link between the permanent disablement and service as a police officer
  • An injury does not have to be received through a single, significant incident. Where no single moment of injury can be identified it is suggested that to all intents and purposes the question is whether the permanent disablement through injury was caused by, or received in, the execution of duty as opposed to domestic or other circumstances not related to police duty
  • The Court of Appeal has held that stress-related illness through exposure to police disciplinary proceedings does not count as an injury received in the execution of duty
  • Police Duty does not extend to a sporting activity for the police while not carried out on duty, unless the injury was due to the officer being known to be a constable
  • Causation has been held by a court to include “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. If all previous straws were in the execution of duty, then the decision may be relatively straightforward. However, in cases where not all the straws were related to police duty the question will centre on to what extent if any. Incidents related to police duty, as opposed to non-related incidents, caused or substantially contributed to the permanent disablement, or simply accelerated its onset
  • An injury which accelerates - (brings forward) the onset of permanent disablement, rather than aggravates - (makes worse) the condition to make it permanent, has been held by a court in a non-binding judgement not to cause the permanent disablement
  • Substantially contributed to is not interpreted by Regulations or the Courts. Whether the injury has or has not made a substantial contribution to permanent disablement is a medical decision
Permanent Disablement
  • A permanent disablement must have a recognised medical cause or be a disability as a result of injury
  • Permanent means for the rest of one’s life. If such a long-term view is difficult the test should be that the officer is likely to remain disabled for the ordinary duties of a member of the force until at least the normal compulsory retirement age for his or her rank, which is 55 or more, depending on rank
  • The issue of permanent disablement should be decided on the balance of probabilities than on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and taking account of current medical knowledge
  • Deciding if a disablement is likely to be permanent shall be determined if the person is assumed to have received normal appropriate medical treatment for their disablement
  • Appropriate medical treatment shall not include medical treatment that it is reasonable in the opinion of the police authority for that person to refuse
  • The SMP should assess:
  • the extent to which the treatment is likely to be effective in preventing permanent disablement, taking account of the officer’s condition and of any other factors, such as allergies, which could lead to complications or harmful side-effects
  • the extent to which the treatment is tried and tested
  • the extent to which the treatment is available to the officer in time for it to be effective, taking account of general availability unless there are special reasons for that not being relevant
  • The definition of appropriate medical treatment in the Regulations expressly excludes treatment to which the officer has a reasonable objection. In a case where the SMP decides that the officer is not permanently disabled because specific appropriate treatment is available to the officer, it will be for the police authority to consider whether any objection by the officer to that treatment is reasonable or not

J:\Operations\Jo Rymer Leeds Work\Police\SMP report IOD.doc 17/09/18