Lack of reasoning in ill health retirement decision – The case study of Mrs Y
Mrs Y applied to Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) for ill health early retirement. This was refused and Mrs Y brought her complaint to TPO.
SFRS relied on an opinion given by Dr Yusuf, an independent registered medical practitioner (IRMP). Dr Yusuf considered Mrs Y:
“not permanently incapable of discharging the duties of her role because of ill health.”
He said that Mrs Y could have recovered with reasonable adjustments and added:
“I cannot say how long such a recover (sic) might have taken…I believe that these conditions were treatable and a return to her normal role of watch commander, with reasonable adjustments, was a realistic possibility within a reasonable period of time.”
The Ombudsman upheld Mrs Y’s complaint because it was felt SFRS had not asked enough questions. In particular, he found Dr Yusuf’s report did not provide reasons for his opinion.
He directed SFRS to seek clarification from Dr Yusuf as to why he thought Mrs Y could return to her previous role or obtain gainful employment before her normal pension age.
He also said SFRS should also get an explanation from Dr Yusuf about what he meant by, “Mrs Y’s condition being treatable” and what timescales he had in mind when he said: “return to work was possible within a reasonable period of time”.
SFRS should then, “consider all medical evidence and explain its decision and reasoning behind it.” If the decision is to grant Mrs Y an IHRP, then all outstanding pension plus interest should be paid.
Related determinations
Related case studies
Post retirement increases – The case study of Mr P
This complaint concerns the annual increases that have been applied to Mr P’s pension.
Pension liberation transfer - The case study of Mr S
Mr S complained that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) allowed him to transfer from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) to the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (the Receiving Scheme).