Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(I)1/00
File Number:	CSI 26 1996
Appellant:	Chief Adjudication Officer v. Faulds
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mr W. M. Walker Q.C.
Date Of Decision:	11/05/2000
Date Added:	21/06/2002
Main Category:	Industrial accidents
Main Subcategory:	arising out of employment
Secondary Category:	Industrial accidents
Secondary Subcategory:	in the course of employment
Notes:	Declaration of an industrial accident - fireman developed post-traumatic stress disorder following attendance at fatal accidents over several years - whether there had been an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment A fireman claimed industrial injuries benefit under section 94(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 on the basis that he had attended many fatal accidents and had been discharged on medical grounds from Strathclyde Fire Brigade after twenty seven years service. Attendance at these accidents had resulted in the claimant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The adjudication officer initially refused his claim. The social security appeal tribunal held that the claimant was incapable of work and had the right to industrial injuries benefit. The Commissioner subsequently held that the tribunal decision should be set aside and declared that the claimant had suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in consequence of his attendance at the fatal accidents. The declaration was made in pursuance of section 44(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The adjudication officer appealed to the Court of Session which held that the words "by accident" should be interpreted as being synonymous with "accidentally" and also that there did not require to be a distinct causative event separate from the injury. The adjudication officer appealed to the House of Lords. Held, allowing the appeal (Lord Hutton dissenting), that: 1. for the purposes of section 94(1), it was necessary to identify an accident which had caused injury to the claimant and that, accordingly, the Court of Session had erred in concluding that it was unnecessary to do; 2. the fact that a claimant had suffered stress or developed a physical or psychological illness as a result of a stressful occupation would not of itself qualify the claimant for an award of industrial injuries benefit; 3. even so, it was possible to find that persons in stressful occupations might have suffered an accident or a series of accidents (although the distinction between an accident and a process might be difficult to discern); 4. "accident" required to be given its ordinary meaning and regard should be had to such factors as expectation and forseeability, whether an incident was exceptional , and to the nature of the claimant's occupation.
Decision(s) to Download:	I1_00.doc