Asthma and hypertension found to be disabilities; arteriosclerosis and cardiomyopathy not
A preliminary hearing ruled that a former employee's asthma and hypertension were disabilities under the Equality Act, but arteriosclerosis and cardiomyopathy were not. No damages awarded as this was a preliminary issue.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #hypertension
- #asthma
- #cardiomyopathy
- #arteriosclerosis
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with hypertension in the early 1990s and it is accepted as a disability.
- The claimant was diagnosed with asthma in November 2019.
- The claimant had a history of cardiomyopathy which resolved by 2005.
- The claimant had arteriosclerosis but medical evidence did not link it to her symptoms.
- The claimant's asthma, together with hypertension, caused substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities.
Timeline
-
Cardiomyopathy diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with non-dilated mild globally hypokinetic left ventricle, mild systolic dysfunction, and left bundle branch block.
-
Cardiomyopathy resolved
Echocardiogram described as entirely normal.
-
Asthma diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with asthma after chest infections and trialled steroid inhaler.
-
Start of relevant period
Agreed start date for assessing disability.
-
GP consultation for leg pain
Claimant reported leg pain after walking about 1km, attributed to arteriosclerosis.
-
Letter to GP
Claimant described asthma as mild and well controlled, cardiomyopathy as past, and leg pain as 'not disabling yet'.
-
Vascular referral
Referred to vascular department for leg pain; reassured medication correct.
-
Consultant report
Mr Rodriguez concluded arteriosclerosis not cause of symptoms; recommended MRI.
-
MRI results
MRI showed normal spinal column; mild aortoiliac disease; review in 2 years.
-
End of relevant period
Agreed end date for assessing disability.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 due to arteriosclerosis, cardiomyopathy, and asthma, in addition to the already conceded disability of hypertension.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the former employee was disabled due to asthma and hypertension, but not due to arteriosclerosis or cardiomyopathy (the latter being a past disability). This was a preliminary hearing to determine disability status, so no compensation was awarded. The decision clarifies which impairments qualify as disabilities for the purposes of the ongoing claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have multiple health conditions, each must be assessed separately for disability status under the Equality Act.
- A condition that has resolved (like cardiomyopathy) may still count as a past disability if it had long-term effects.
- Medical evidence that does not link symptoms to a specific impairment (e.g., arteriosclerosis) can weaken a disability claim.
- The tribunal focuses on the actual adverse effects on day-to-day activities, not just the diagnosis.
What this case shows
This preliminary hearing demonstrates how employment tribunals assess disability under the Equality Act 2010. The former employee had hypertension (conceded as a disability) and argued that three other conditions—arteriosclerosis, cardiomyopathy, and asthma—also qualified. The tribunal agreed that asthma, combined with hypertension, caused substantial adverse effects on daily activities, making it a disability. However, arteriosclerosis was not linked to her symptoms, and cardiomyopathy had resolved years earlier, so it only counted as a past disability.
What the employer could have done differently
Greenbrook Healthcare could have avoided this preliminary dispute by carefully reviewing the medical evidence before contesting the disability status. The tribunal noted that the clinical label is often less important than the actual effects on the employee's life. A more collaborative approach might have narrowed the issues earlier.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that employees with multiple conditions should present clear evidence of how each impairment affects their daily activities. It also shows that past disabilities are still protected, but only if the condition was long-term at the time. For employers, challenging disability status without strong medical counter-evidence can be costly and may not succeed.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.