Support Practitioner's disability claim struck out after no medical evidence of substantial effect
A tribunal found that a support practitioner with Mixed Connective Tissue Disease was not disabled under the Equality Act, striking out her discrimination claim for lack of medical evidence.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #mixed-connective-tissue-disease
- #disability-discrimination
- #preliminary-hearing
- #struck-out
- #no-medical-evidence
Key facts
- The claimant was diagnosed with Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) in 2010.
- The claimant's MCTD had not required treatment since 2015 and was described as stable and quiescent in 2017.
- The claimant provided no medical evidence to show that her MCTD had a substantial adverse effect on her daily activities in April-June 2021.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Diagnosis of MCTD
The claimant was diagnosed with Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD).
-
Medication discontinued
The claimant was taken off immuno-suppression drugs due to side effects; she later used only over-the-counter medication and herbal remedies.
-
First occupational health report
Dr Sarangi reported that the claimant's MCTD symptoms were fluctuant and likely fell under the Equality Act.
-
Second occupational health report
Dr Jackson Brown noted minimal physical disability and that MCTD had minimal effects on function when not flaring.
-
Dr Gupta's report
Dr Gupta stated that the claimant's MCTD was stable and quiescent, with no flare-ups since 2015.
-
Rheumatology consultation
The claimant reported doing well; her MCTD was not having a substantial adverse effect on daily activities.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct due to refusal to participate in Covid-19 testing.
-
Preliminary hearing on disability
Employment Judge S Moore heard evidence and submissions on whether the claimant was disabled.
-
Judgment on disability
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time and struck out her disability discrimination claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of her dismissal in June 2021, specifically whether it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time and struck out her disability discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The key reason was that the claimant provided no medical evidence to show that her MCTD had a substantial adverse effect on her daily activities in April-June 2021. Medical reports from 2015 and 2017 indicated her condition was stable, quiescent, and had minimal effects on function when not flaring. The claimant's own impact statements were inconsistent with the medical records, and she rowed back in cross-examination, stating symptoms only occurred on hot days.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are bringing a disability discrimination claim, you must provide medical evidence showing that your condition had a substantial adverse effect on your daily activities at the time of the alleged discrimination.
- Old medical reports may not be sufficient if they show your condition was stable or quiescent; you need evidence covering the relevant period.
- Inconsistencies between your own statements and medical records can undermine your case, so be consistent and accurate in describing your symptoms.
- Representing yourself in a preliminary hearing on disability status can be challenging; consider seeking legal advice or representation if possible.
The importance of medical evidence in disability claims
This case shows how crucial it is to have up-to-date medical evidence when claiming disability discrimination. The support practitioner had been diagnosed with Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) in 2010 and had experienced symptoms such as joint pain, fatigue, and swelling. However, by the time of her dismissal in June 2021, she had not provided any medical evidence to show that her condition still had a substantial adverse effect on her daily activities.
Medical reports from 2015 and 2017 indicated that her MCTD was stable, quiescent, and had minimal effects on function when not flaring. The tribunal noted that the claimant's own impact statements were inconsistent with these records, and she admitted in cross-examination that her symptoms only affected her on hot days. Without medical evidence to support her claim of disability at the relevant time, the tribunal found she did not meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
What the employer did right
MacIntyre Care Limited requested medical evidence early in the process and relied on occupational health reports that showed the claimant's condition was well-managed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not demonstrated a substantial adverse effect, and the claim was struck out.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that a diagnosis alone is not enough to establish disability. Claimants must provide medical evidence showing that their condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the time of the alleged discrimination. Without such evidence, even a genuine condition may not qualify for protection under the Equality Act.
Similar cases
Senior nurse's unfair dismissal claim struck out after being filed over four years late
A tribunal struck out a senior nurse's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims because she filed them more than four years after the deadline, despite knowing the time limits.
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.
Sciatica claim fails at first hurdle: not disabled under Equality Act
A tribunal found a passenger assistant with sciatica was not disabled at the time of her dismissal, because her symptoms had not lasted 12 months and there was no evidence they would. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
Dilated right kidney held to be a disability under Equality Act
A former employee with a dilated right kidney has been found disabled under the Equality Act, allowing his discrimination claims to proceed to a full hearing.