Mrs L Chivers v L Rice and others: 3308804/2022
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]By way of a claim form received 23 June 20222, the claimant Mrs. L Chivers, makes a claim of disability discrimination against the respondents.[2]Claimant was employed as a recruitment administrator by the respondent on a fixed term contract running from the 11th of October 2021 to the 11th of April 2022. Shortly before the termination of her employment which does not form part of this claim, the claimant submitted a grievance in relation to what she perceived to be disability discrimination against her by the respondent. The details of that grievance were not placed before the tribunal.[3]On 21 of October 2022 the tribunal ordered that the claimant provide an impact statement and medical evidence in relation to her claim to the respondent following receipt of which the respondents were to indicate whether they conceded the issue as to whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of her claim. The order required the claimant to answer a series of questions. Specifically, she was required to confirm what mental and physical impairments she relied upon and to do so by 21 November 2022. In response, the claimant stated that she suffered from hypertension brought on by stress and that “....it appears to affect my hearing”.[4]Further, the claimant was ordered to provide information about how long she had the impairment, details of the effects of the impairment on her ability to do day-to-day activities, to provide the dates when the effects of the impairment started and stopped and if they had stopped, to explain the duration of the effect. The claimant was asked to explain how she considered herself to have how she considered the condition to have a substantial long term effect, details of medical treatment received and to provide relevant parts of her GP and or medical records or relevant documents that might evidence her assertion that she had a disability at the times relevant to the claim that she makes against the respondents.[5]By way of a separate letter the tribunal informed the parties that the case would listed for an open preliminary hearing on 27 February 2023 to determine whether the claimant had a disability that fell within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It was made clear that should the claimant be unable to satisfy the statutory definition of disability, the claim would be dismissed at that hearing.[6]In a response dated the 7 December 2022 the claimant submitted that she suffered from hypertension brought on by stress and that she considered that when she encountered stressful situations she suffered hearing loss. Within the claimant’s response were identified a number of events that she relied upon as acts of discrimination during which she suffered hearing loss which she believed had occurred due to stress.[7]However, the claimant did not deal with the tribunal's order requiring her to provide her medical records or any other documentary evidence that could support her supposition that her condition of hypertension did indeed induce hearing loss save for some brief details of a medical research paper from an unidentified source which asserted what it described as a clear link between hypertension and hearing loss. The study upon which the claimant relied was formed on 274 patients and the extent of its conclusions and findings were incomplete insofar as the evidence placed before the tribunal was concerned.[8]At the start of the hearing I explained to the parties that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether or not the claimant condition met the statutory definition of disability or not. I asked the claimant what condition she was relying on. She explained that it was hypertension brought on by stress that affects hearing loss. Specifically, the claimant explained:(a) that she has hypertension for which she receives medication;(b) that she has not received a separate diagnosis of hearing loss of any kind;(c) that she had not properly understood that she was required to provide relevant medical records to the respondent despite the clear wording of the tribunal’s order requiring her to do so in support of her asserted case of disability;(d) that she was unable to evidence the link between hearing loss and high blood pressure that she asserted before the tribunal;(e) that she had suffered with hypertension for around 12 years;(f) that the effect of a spike in hypertension was that it would induce deafness in her such that she would not be able to hear what was being said to her on a telephone and that the effects of this were transient in nature as opposed to long lasting;(g) That she had not been able to receive treatment for her condition because that would require her to stop taking her blood pressure medication and that this in turn meant that she had been unable to either independently verify or qualify at any time the fact of her asserted hearing loss at times when she was dealing with elevated levels of stress; and(h) that her GP believed what she was saying namely that hypertension induced hearing loss during periods of stress but that her GP was unable to say any more than that.[9]I explained that I had formed the view that the claimant had not, on the balance of probabilities satisfied the test on establishing that she had suffered from a disability that fell within the statutory definition as set out at section 6 Equality Act 2010. In my view, the claimant had provided no evidence of any hearing loss whatsoever but was asking the tribunal to support her supposition that hypertension and stress caused her hearing loss to the extent that it satisfied the statutory definition. Specifically, the claimant had failed to demonstrate that she suffered from a condition namely hearing loss which was substantial or long term and in the circumstances it must follow that I was unable to find that she met the statutory definition. Accordingly, claim stands struck out.