The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment based on the GOS-E test, and that he was not entitled to attendant care benefits. The claimant argued that the Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate. The Court agreed, concluding that the reasons were largely conclusory, rested on factual findings that there was no evidence to support, and the reasons failed to grapple with the opposing expert views on the claimant’s impairments. The Court granted the appeal, and ordered the Tribunal to conduct a new hearing on the claim.
