Mr B Sheridan v Lothian Health Board: 8002054/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8002054/2025

Between

Mr Barry SheridanClaimant

Lothian Health BoardRespondent

Before

Employment Judge J Hendry

Mr Kevin Harris (instructed by Counsel) for claimant

Messrs Lyons Davidson for claimant

Solicitors for claimant

Mr R Davies (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 15 April 2026

JUDGMENT

The claimant was a disabled person in terms of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 from October 2024 onwards by virtue of a stress/anxiety condition.

REASONS

[1]An Open Preliminary Hearing took place on 13 March 2026 in order to consider whether the claimant could demonstrate that he was disabled in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act by reason of the various conditions that he had. Mr Davies had helpfully lodged bundles of documents containing the claimant’s medical evidence and then a separate bundle containing the pleadings. Mr Harris had lodged a skeleton argument.

[2]At the outset, I explained the purpose of today’s hearing for the benefit of Mr Sheridan and that he would be required to give evidence. His solicitors had lodged an Impact Statement prior to the hearing. ETZ4(WR)

[3]Mr Davies raised a separate matter. He indicated that on a close examination of the pleadings the claimant had not pled that he was relying on a “stress and anxiety” condition. He took the Tribunal to the detailed ET1 and explained that there had been a revision of the pleadings and in the original ET1 and the revised ET1 there was no reference to this condition. In paragraph 4 the claimant pleads that he was diagnosed with epilepsy and suffered a number of grande mall epileptic seizures and been left with damage to the left side of his brain. In paragraph 5 he made reference to suffering a stroke.

[4]There was a short adjournment to allow Mr Harris to take instructions. On his return he indicated that his position was that the respondent had notice of the condition. He took me to certain parts of the documentation and pleadings that assisted him. He indicated that he would formally amend the case to add stress and anxiety as the third impairment that the claimant relied on.

[5]Mr Davies advised that he was not objecting to the amendment. He did, however, want the nature of the amendment set down in writing. Happily paragraph 4 in both the original ET1 and the revised ET1 (revised with track and change) paragraph had not been altered. Accordingly an amendment was allowed to add the words “The claimant was also disabled due to work related stress and depression from August 2023”.

Issues

[6]It should be noted that the respondent’s solicitor had written to the Tribunal on 4 March setting out his position on the claimant’s disability status in updated Grounds of Resistance. In paragraph 67 onwards of the Grounds of Resistance it was stated that it was accepted that the claimant was disabled due to epilepsy but the respondent did not accept the claimant was disabled in relation to brain damage/stroke effects, heart condition/hypertension or work related stress and depression before February 2026. The Tribunal had to determine if these were qualifying disabilities.

Evidence

[7]Mr Sheridan then gave evidence, firstly by adopting the Disability Impact Statement that had been lodged (running to 42 paragraphs). Mr Harris then questioned the claimant particularly elaborating on the stress and depressive condition that had been added. His position was that he had begun suffering from stress and depression due to work related difficulties in June 2023 and that these difficulties had continued to be substantial. He could not stop thinking about work related matters, he became withdrawn and had suicidal ideation. This caused him to consult his GP in August and had to be signed off.

Facts

[8]The claimant worked for the respondent from 1 December 2022 onwards as a “Alcohol and Drug Partnership Lead”.

[9]The claimant was a recovering alcoholic and had almost reached 25 years of sobriety. In his youth he had taken illicit drugs including cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, benzodiazapan and valium. Because of these experiences he had an interest in assisting those who suffer from substance abuse. He attended University and has a number of academic qualifications. He has provided his expertise and experience to the Scottish Government and has co-authored a number of academic peer reviewed writings.

[10]The claimant manages his conditions by trying to lead a healthy lifestyle (Paragraph 6 Witness Statement). Brain Damage/Stroke

[11]The claimant believes that because he had grand mall seizures (he has had epileptic fits since he was 11) he has sustained some brain damage at some point. He also believes that having had a stroke in November 2021 he was left with some brain damage. He was told that the imaging results that were carried out at the time of his stroke in November 2021 indicated that some damage to his brain had occurred. He was told that he had experienced an earlier stroke in about 1993 and that had caused some damage to his brain.

[12]The claimant’s condition requires that he takes the following medication: a) Ramipril – 2.5mg once daily (hypertension) b) Atorvastatin – 80mg once daily (stroke, heart condition) c) Clopidogrel – 75mg once daily (stroke, heart condition) d) Epilim – 1gm (epilepsy) e) Mirtazapine – 30 mg (depression)

[13]The claimant was discharged from hospital care on 2 June 2023. He believes that if he did not take the medications there would be an increased risk of suffering further strokes. The claimant has also noted that the stroke in November 2021 has caused minor damage to his right arm and believes that the brain damage sustained by him causes issues with processing written information. He sometimes forgets words at the end of sentences and he misses words in written communication when typing reports and emails. Heart Condition/Hypertension

[14]In relation to his heart the claimant was diagnosed with a minor heart condition called a PVO and underwent heart surgery namely an Angioplasty in February 23 which closed the hole in his heart. The Surgeon reported (Mp111/112) “We explained the rationale of the device to close the PFO but highlighted that our advice would be to continue his Clopidogrel as a long term therapy minimise his risk of stroke from any cause”.

[15]He manages the condition by(a) drinking no alcohol,

(b) not smoking,

(d) engaging in moderate exercise. He has felt chest pains and his GP says they are stress related resulting in him ongoing HR processes at work. He was diagnosed with high blood pressure in November 2021 and now takes special medication to reduce hypertension. If he does not take this medication he will have an increased risk of further heart problems and strokes.

[16]He was signed off unfit to work by his GP from August 2023 until 30 October 2024 in relation to work related stress. The claimant has found this particular period difficult. He finds it difficult to sleep. He loses concentration. He has had difficulty with his personal and intimate relationship with his wife. He has become depressed and has had suicidal ideation. In February 2025 the claimant’s GP prescribed Mirtrazapine which is an antidepressant medication with a 50 mg dose that is taken nightly. Since then the claimant made a selfreferral to the local community mental health service and undergone a telephone conversation with a clinical psychologist on 5 June 2025. In August 2025 the GP increased his dosage of Mirtrazapine to 30 mgs every night. The claimant has been awarded adult disability payment to assist with everyday living tasks. The work related stress and depression, low mood and anxiety has significantly impacted on the claimant’s ability to focus on work related tasks. He struggles to sustain concentration when undertaking tasks. He focused on events that occurred at work and internal procedures.

[17]The claimant was signed off work on 31 August 2023 by his GP. The reasons given were work related stress (CM207). The claimant was signed off work by his GP on 28 September 2023. The reason given was work related stress (CM203). The claimant was signed off work by his GP on 26 October 2023 (CM205). The claimant was signed off work for work related stress by his GP on 31 July 2024.

[18]The claimant was signed off work for work related stress on 28 August 2024 (Mp202). He was also signed off on 2 December 2025 for the same reasons (M201).

[19]Following his heart operation the claimant attended a meeting with Elaine Muirhead, Advanced Clinical Nurse Specialist at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank (M158-159). He noted 2 diagnoses:(1) left middle cerebral artery territory stroke – November 2021,

(2) patent foraman ovale (PVO) on TOE (scan). She wrote “Barry explained his early admission to QEUH post discharge. I can see from clinical portal that all investigations were reassuring and Barry denies any symptoms or concerns since then. I can see he had attended because of what he felt to be an electric current on his chest”. She also wrote: “He has started a new role on drug and alcohol policy in West Lothian. He seems to be enjoying this and acknowledges the stress that his previous employment brought. In addition, Barry is back exercising fully, including cycling, running and gym work. I very much encourage this and place no restrictions on the activity that he can and cannot do in future. In line with 2015 ESC guidelines on managing endocarditis Barry should be considered for antibiotic Prophylaxis for invasive dental treatments required within 6 months of intervention. Following this period there are no specific considerations other than ongoing daily oral hygiene with routine visits to his dentist.”

[20]The claimant attended his GP on 31 August. The GP recorded under History “Cannot manage work commitments as having to cover several job roles. Occupational Health are not helpful. Very stressed and cannot cope especially in view of other health issues.” He consulted his GP on 31 March 2025. They wrote under History “Tell – mental health – 51 year old – HX of Personality Disorder and previous drug use. Formal grievance ongoing for 18 months, involved in a whistleblowing complaint – he has pulled up service for multiple problems related to drugs related deaths. Works as an Alcohol and Drug partnership lead for NHS Lothian. Only getting a decent night’s sleep on a Saturday night. Uncovered fraud all the way up. It all started after in recovery from heart attack following covid booster jag … Hasn’t had anything to help with mood and sleep.” He consulted his GP on 31 July 2024. He recorded “Works in drug and alcohol policy making. Work stress involved in grievance. Poor sleep, mind racing, doesn’t want any Rx. Wants a sick line to GGAT (get out of situation)’’. Witness

[21]The claimant appeared as an honest witness. He has a history of having a number of health problems. He clearly took pride, as he should, at overcoming considerable difficulties in his youth and early adulthood and achieving his current position of both being free from substance abuse and reaching his current professional standing. My only caveat is that the claimant spoke about his health conditions and while I have no doubt as to his credibility in describing symptoms he is not medically trained and relies on information he had gleaned from his physicians in relation to the extent and causes of his conditions and this evidence was not always consistent with the medical notes. Submissions

[22]Mr Harris provided written submissions which he supplemented following conclusion of the evidence. He pointed to the cross examination by Mr Davies suggesting that there were other reasons and alternative causes for the claimant’s difficulties perhaps relating to drug use early in his life. As the claimant pointed out this had occurred a long time ago (over 30 years ago). The claimant had been living with the effects of problems he had experienced he would pose the question that it would be likely that some of the medical records would reflect this drug use as a factor if it was. Turning to the stroke condition the claimant has obtained information from his doctors when he had a stroke in November that there had been some earlier brain damage caused by his epilepsy. Again he submitted that there was no reference to his difficulties being caused by earlier addictions. There was clear medical reasons for giving the claimant medication to minimise the risk of further strokes and/damage to his heart. His heart condition was in effect related. Again the claimant was given medication in relation to protecting him from further heart related issues. There was, Counsel suggested, sufficient evidence to show these were appropriate disabilities.

[23]He then turned to the stress, anxiety/depression condition. His position was that the claimant had given very clear evidence about the impact of stress and anxiety on him. He invited the Tribunal to put some weight on the Occupational Health Reports that had been produced by the respondents which suggested that at an early stage he was regarded as being disabled. The claimant was given an antidepressant at an early stage which indicated that the GP recognised the seriousness of the condition. We now know that the condition has lasted more than a year and in his submission it must be clear that viewing matters in 2023 and 2024 there was evidence that the condition was persistent. The Tribunal should in all these matters consider the deduced effect and not take account of the medication that he had been prescribed.

[24]Mr Davies started off by making some general background points. He suggested that this was a case where medical evidence would have considerably assisted the Tribunal pointing to the likely effects that certain conditions had or would have without the impact of medication. The claimant’s case had a difficulty in relation to causation. He did not agree that the Tribunal should put much weight on the Occupational Health Reports that he had provided. There was no guarantee that the authors (who did not attend to give evidence and could not be cross examined) had bent their mind to the correct legal tests under section 6 of the Equality Act. He accepted that the Tribunal had to look at the deduced effect and there was no clear “before and after” evidence of what the claimant could do before his stroke which he could not do afterwards.

[25]He then considered the suggested brain damage. It was not clear what the position was in relation to that damage. The claimant could not say whether the effect was substantial or what the cause was. There was no expert evidence in relation to the heart condition/hypertension. The only effect this seemed to have had was the claimant’s allegation that he felt pains in his chest in relation to an interaction with HR. This was not sufficient to show a substantial impact. Finally in relation to stress and depression the respondent accepts that by February 2026 the claimant was disabled.

[26]Overall, in his submission, there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to come to a view that at an earlier date the claimant was disabled. He had 3 separate absences through stress. The Tribunal should examine these absences carefully. They seem to point to the claimant being stressed in relation to particular work place circumstances rather than any underlying depression or anxiety related condition. Discussion and Decision

[27]Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 deals with the question of ‘disability status’ i.e. when a person will be considered to be a disabled person for the purposes of the Act. It provides as follows: 6 Disability (1) A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

[28]The word “substantial” is defined in s.212(1) Equality Act 2010 as meaning “more than minor or trivial”.

[29]The section is supplemented by Schedule 1 of the Act and by statutory guidance with the rather lengthy name of “Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)”. I had regard to these, and to the EHRC’s Code of Practice on Employment, particularly Appendix 1 which deals with the meaning of disability.

[30]It is now well-established that a Tribunal making a determination of disability status must focus on what a person cannot do, or can do only with difficulty, rather than on the things he can do easily. As noted in the Code, it is relevant to consider whether an impairment means that a particular activity causes pain and fatigue, even if it does not prevent the claimant from undertaking it entirely.

[31]Section D of The Guidance contains some provisions on what amounts to normal day-to-day activities. Paragraph D3 provides: “In general day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport and taking part in social activities. Normal day-to-day activities can include general work- related activities and study and educationrelated activities, such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents and keeping to a timetable or shift pattern.”

[32]The latter part of the guidance reflects case law which has established that activities which are done at work may be “day to day activities” provided that they are general and undertaken by wide sections of the population. This is applicable here where the claimant would require to be alert and to be able to concentrate in order to carry out his duties.

[33]A specialist activity such as playing piano to a high standard would almost certainly not count as a day-to-day activity, but activities which form part of general participation in professional life e.g. using a computer, answering emails, talking to people in a professional manner, may well be day-to-day activities. (Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA

2007 ICR 1

and Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

2007 ICR 1522

)

[34]Subsequent cases such as Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd

(2013) ICR 591

, EAT, Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd

(2016) IRLR 273

, EAT and the ECJ decision in HK Danmark v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab

(2013) ICR 851

have consistently found that specific work-based activities can properly be relied on in demonstrating a disability. These cases establish that the term “normal day to day activities” is better seen as a yardstick, or a measure of seriousness, rather than a requirement to distinguish between activities carried out at work and those carried out away from work. In the present case the sort of impacts the claimant spoke to related to matters such as his ability to concentrate and focus on issues, needed for his duties, as well as problems with sleep and motivation.

[35]The claimant has and continues to have a number of heath difficulties. Turning firstly to the Brain Damage/Stroke question the medical notes sometimes record the second stroke as occurring in December 2021 but the claimant and his GP identify the correct date as November. Investigations took place after the claimant had presented to his GP. On reading the medical notes it seems that after investigations and review by a multi-disciplinary team the consensus was that there was some evidence that the claimant had experienced a stroke in the early 1993. They concluded that he had also suffered a “Mild Left MCA event” due to a heart defect in November 2021.

[36]In his Witness Statement he says he was told that “some” damage had occurred. The claimant says that “damage to the left side of the brain is known to cause issues with processing written information”. He also mentions his right arm being affected. He describes forgetting words at the end of sentences and missing words in written material such as reports. He was adamant that there was no other possible cause such as his earlier drug use as Mr Davies had suggested. In cross examination it was put to the claimant that he successfully authored a number of academic reports and did not seem impacted by these alleged deficits and his response was they were jointly authored and the co-author would have picked them up.

[37]I would add that no corroborative evidence was led from colleagues or coauthors that might give an indication of the frequency or seriousness of this problem. I am not sure if the papers disclose a medical basis for the claimant’s views on causation and such lapses might be explained by the stress condition the claim developed. We had very little evidence about weakness in his right arm. It is only mentioned once by him as causing “minor damage”. In the medical notes it is recorded by the Consultant Dr Jesse Dawson that in relation to his right arm (the claimant is left handed) “There is definitely no functional deficit…” (Mp62) and “he has almost no discernible deficit”.

[38]I do not doubt that the claimant has noted the experience of missing words he claims but there is nothing to connect those experiences (or how commonly they occur) or with the stroke(s) he experienced. I would observe that the two events he founds on took place some 28 years apart and there is no evidence they had the same causation. There is also a difficulty when considering what the claimant cannot do now (write reports without missing occasional words) with what he was able to do in the past. Nor is there satisfactory evidence to say that any impact (of the stroke(s)) appeared to have has been more than minor/trivial as the Act requires.

[39]I was asked to consider the deduced effect namely what would happen if the prophylactic medications were withdrawn. These are I understand Atorvastatin and Clopidrogrel (the latter replaced the Aspirin he was previously taking and is a blood thinner). I cannot as Mr Harris suggested work backwards by saying that it could be implied that as he is prescribed such medication he would be liable to have further strokes and would become quickly disabled. I am sure there is a prophylactic reason for such medications and some assessment of risk compared to benefit was made but it is not at all clear. These are questions that medical evidence might have greatly assisted the Tribunal with but which it does not have. In all these circumstances I do not accept that the claimant has demonstrated that his strokes allow him to claim he is disabled on those grounds. Heart Condition/Hypertension

[40]The claimant mentions in his Witness Statement (Paragraph 19) that he was diagnosed with a heart condition in February 2022 and had surgery in February 2023. I note that he was referred to the Rapid Access Chest Pain clinic in February 2021 (M67) but that he was discharged with Dr Connolly noting that the pains in the chest seemed to occur when the claimant was stressed at work and that they had settled. His symptoms were described as “not particularly worrying”. However, concurrent investigations were still taking place in relation to the stroke in November 2021 which involved his heart. (Mp80/81). He seems initially to have been given the all clear but investigations in relation to the causes of the stroke continued and after an ultrasound in June 2022 a small hole in the heart (which was otherwise asymptomatic) was discovered and then closed in February 2023. The operation seems to have been a success. There was no substantial impact on his ability to carry out day to day activities before the operation and as far as I can see no continuing issue. He was continued on Clopidogrel to minimise his risk of stroke “for any reason”. I am not sure that the claimant can say he has a “heart problem” given the apparent success of the operation closing the POV. It is noteworthy that he appears to have been asymptomatic before the operation. His heart was working normally apart from the minor leakage caused by the small hole. I have no evidence that it impacted on his day to day activities before the POV was detected and certainly not now. As noted earlier the issue is that the POV makes blood clots more likely and this may have caused his minor stroke in November 2021.

[41]The claimant also indicates that he was diagnosed with Hypertension since November 2021. The medical notes present a more complex picture with references to stress at work. There is scant evidence that the hypertension caused any substantial impact on day today activities. It was clearly a worrying condition given the claimant’s history and I do not seek to minimise it. There is no evidence that it would get worse.

[42]I can well understand the claimant’s concerns about the possible continuing danger his previous heart condition had on the danger of further strokes and the further complication that hypertension caused. There is no indication of any progressive condition and the risk of stroke from these conditions is not commented upon by the various medical professionals. I am left with no evidence of what the risk to the claimant’s heath would be if the medication was stopped. I accept that it can be argued that there must be some risk or the medication would not be prescribed but the evidence before me is unsatisfactory and I am not prepared to accept that the claimant has demonstrated that these conditions, which do not appear linked, are qualifying disabilities either standing alone or taken together. Anxiety/Depression

[43]The issue to consider here is when this condition arose and when it could be classed as a qualifying disability. As Mr Harris stressed it has to be borne in mind that the claimant received medication and we needed to consider the deduced effect of that medication.

[44]The GP records unfortunately only start in 2023. The claimant changed GP practice and the earlier notes were not produced. The first occasion “work stress” is mentioned in the notes is at the consultation on the 30 March 2023 and seems more the noting of a possible impact on his blood pressure as it is put this way: “Generally readings later in the day are higher? Work stress”. He was on medication for high blood pressure at this point not for anxiety/stress itself.

[45]There are numerous events occurring throughout 2023 in the claimant’s life that would lead to feelings of stress in most people. He had health problems and ongoing investigations in to those problems. He tells his GP that he has problems at work and has raised employment tribunal proceedings against his employers (his former employers). At this point it does not seem as if the stress condition is recognised as a condition in its own right requiring medication although the medication for reducing his blood pressure may have had an impact. I heard no evidence on this but it seems a reasonable inference that something that reduces blood pressure is likely to have some impact on stress someone is experiencing.

[46]The claimant gave clear evidence about the impact his stress symptoms had on his ability to carry out day to day activities. The claimant in his Witness Statement indicates that he was first signed off work by his GP in August 2023 for “work related stress” (Paragraph 24). He has two long absences from work. He then describes periods of absence until he says February 2025 (the notes suggest March) when he was prescribed an anti-depressant and it was suggested that he self-refer to the community mental health team. I had noted that the claimant was first prescribed Mirtazapine at this time to address depressive symptoms. At this point the GP notes that the claimant reports ‘constantly ruminating’ about matters and this ties in with his difficulties in sleeping and concentrating.

[47]I accept that such conditions as anxiety often fluctuate and ‘spike’ when stressful events occur. It was not argued that this was a condition such as depression that fluctuated and was likely to recur. However, looking at the matter broadly there is some evidence that the claimant had suffered from stress related to work for some time before it is recorded as a symptom in March 2023 in the GP notes. There is reference in the notes to him suffering stress in his earlier employment. It is a pity that there are no earlier notes that might assist or any medical evidence about the potential interrelationship between the claimant’s high blood pressure and the stress he was experiencing at work and whether the latter caused or contributed to the former.

[48]It should be noted that the claimant was put on Ramipril as a repeat prescription from at least early 2023. In the same year he had a significant two month absence for work related stress. The first OH in September 2023 was prompted by his absence (Mp208) and it says that he was likely to be considered as disabled under the Act. The report was compiled by a Dr Emma Robinson, a Consultant in Occupational Medicine, after a face to face interview. Although the authors of the OH reports did not give evidence the claimant gave evidence that he had attended the meetings and he founded on the terms of the reports.

[49]I accept Mr Davies’ caution about giving them definitive weight in relation to disability status. I do not intend to do so. There are numerous matters that are not particularly clear from the reports such as when do the physicians say that the “stress” condition started and when did it become persistent and problematic. They do, however, corroborate the claimant’s evidence to an extent as being contemporaneous records of his reported symptoms and the medical professionals assessment which did not contradict him. Dr Robinson recorded that the claimant had been experiencing stress at work since his return in February 2023 some six or so months earlier.

[50]I noted that the second OH report carried out in October by Dr Robinson indicated that his other health conditions had been stabilised and that he could return to work but needed adjustments for his stress condition. This was the stage where a stress risk assessment was being carried out (Mp212). His condition was to be reviewed but he returned to work in November on a phased return. This report was also compiled after a face to face interview.

[51]The next report was carried out on the 10 January 2024 (Mp217-219) by the same physician. She advised that regular one to one meetings should take place to help manage his stress. The final report in June (Mp222-223) was conducted by a different Doctor who noted that although the claimant was still at work he reported “struggling”. He also indicated that it was ‘likely’ that the claimant fell into the definition of a disabled person.

[52]Looking at the matter broadly my conclusion is that I cannot say that the claimant was disabled from February 2023 as Mr Harris invited me to do. There is in my view insufficient evidence that the condition was not a relatively temporary stress condition brought on by the various difficulties the claimant was experiencing with his health and also at work and that it could not be said that at this stage the condition was “likely” to be long term. The claimant was up until October in contact with his GP about chest pain. This must have been concerning for him and the notes show that cardiac services were involved. That matter seems to have been resolved following an ECG on the 5 October.

[53]The claimant met Dr Robinson on the 11 October (Mp21). With due respect to Dr Robinson I cannot see from the first report in September that she clearly had in mind an analysis as to when the condition started or likely duration and may have been more focused on its likely development if untreated. I also cannot see how she can exclude the impact of other stressful but transitory matters. The difficulty is that her reasoning is not apparent from the report.

[54]In relation to the deduced effect of medication the claimant was only on medication for his hypertension at this point which, as I have discussed above, may have some impact on the stress he was feeling but was not a medication prescribed specifically for the purpose of ameliorating his stress symptoms. Nevertheless it is bound to have some effect. However, more significantly in my view by the second Occupational Health report the Doctor has been able to say that the claimant’s other health issues had stabilised and by inference could be excluded as a cause for stress) but that his stress condition continued and required adjustments at work. A stress assessment was to be carried out. This seems to be at least some recognition that his condition was persistent and required to be subject of adjustments at work. It also implies that it will not resolve spontaneously. On this basis I am prepared to accept that it was likely that the claimant was disabled from October 2024 onwards as by that point he had a persistent work related stress/anxiety condition in other words one that was likely to last 12 months or longer and which required the putting in place of adjustments and a phased return. I also recognise that a few months later (February 2025) his condition had worsened and he had approached his GP and been prescribed anti-depressant medication. Case Management

[55]We dealt with some case management matters. It was agreed that the List of Issues would be completed after the issue of the Judgment. The claimant’s lawyer will have 14 days to indicate whether they are want to respond to the further specification given by the respondents (Mr Sheridan helpfully indicated that he was on holiday for 2 weeks and that this might cause a delay in any substantive response). Mr Harris queried whether all the queries remained outstanding. Mr Davies advised that at the end of the day the respondent will be happy provided they receive a response to all their queries and he will check which are outstanding. I will leave that to be dealt with voluntarily.

[56]The case will proceed to a final hearing. Listing letters will be sent out to identify suitable dates. I raised the question of the use of witness statements. Both parties will consider the matter and revert to the Tribunal within the next 14 days as to whether or not they consider witness statements would be appropriate.