Snippet #3 – Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

Snippet #3 – Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

Before a Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’) may revise an injury pension during a ‘reassessment of injury pension‘ under regulation 37(1), they shall refer the question of ‘the degree of the person’s disablement‘ to a duly qualified medical practitioner, as confirmed in regulation  30(2)(d) –

30.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the question whether a person is entitled to any, and if so what, awards under these Regulations shall be determined in the first instance by the police authority.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), where the police authority are considering whether a person is permanently disabled, they shall refer for decision to a duly qualified medical practitioner selected by them the following questions—

(d) the degree of the person’s disablement; and, if they are considering whether to revise an injury pension, shall so refer question (d) above.


What this means is, that whilst any paid employment the pensioner is performing may be considered by the Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) as an indication to their current level of disability, it does not allow non medical staff, regardless of their rank or role to recalculate a new level of disability based on their income, and therefore a new band.



Snippet #2 – Suitable Interval

Snippet #2 – Suitable Interval

Suitable Interval

Before a review, or a “reassessment of injury pension” can take place under regulation 37(1),the Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’) must firstly consider whether a suitable interval has elapsed. This is the first part of Regulation 37(1) –

37.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, where an injury pension is payable under these Regulations, the police authority shall, at such intervals as may be suitable…


A suitable interval is not defined in the regulations, but was touched upon in ‘The Queen on the Application of Turner v The Police Medical Appeal Board’

para 23 – There is no question of relitigation and, of course, suitable intervals suggests that this is not a matter which should be revisited every year, nor is it.


Each case should be considered on its own merits as to whether a suitable interval has passed. In our view, it may be, due to the severity of a pensioners injury, that a suitable interval may be determined as ‘never’.



Snippet #1 – Comparison Exercise

Snippet #1 – Comparison Exercise

Comparison Exercise

The regulation used to review an existing award is 37(1). A review, or a “reassessment of injury pension” to be more accurate is a comparison exercise from the date of your award, or your last review to the present day. This is confirmed in the case of Metropolitan Police Authority v Laws & Anor [2010]

para 18 – So much is surely confirmed by the terms of Regulation 37(1), under which the police authority (via the SMP/Board) are to “consider whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered”. The premise is that the earlier decision as to the degree of disablement is taken as a given; and the duty – the only duty – is to decide whether, since then, there has been a change: “substantially altered”, in the words of the Regulation. The focus is not merely on the outturn figure, but on the substance of the degree of disablement.


This means that the SMP has to identify a substantial alteration in the pensioners disability from the last assessment. A fresh assessment just based on the here and now is not permitted.