The ET found that C was not disabled. The ET ran systematically through the factors set out in the statutory Guidance but failed to make a decision on what effect C’s disability would have had on his day-to-day activities without medication. C appealed
The Claimant had an anxiety condition diagnosed as dysphoria. He claimed that he had been turned down for a job when the Respondent learned that he had a disability. The Claimant’s condition was diagnosed on 16 November 2007. It was stress induced. The Claimant took Fluoxetine daily.
The EAT considered that a dependence on Fluoxetine, taken to avoid the condition presented to the GP, indicated that the tribunal should have explored what the Claimant’s disability would have been like without the medication. The EAT considered that there was sufficient information before the tribunal to have made the effect of medication an issue that required determination. Significantly the chairman’s notes themselves recorded the issue as one that needed to be resolved. The EAT remitted the issue for consideration to a different tribunal.
This is a helpful case emphasising the need to examine the effect that medication might have on a person’s day to day activities when considering whether a person meets the statutory definition of disability.