Claimant v Proman Managed Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant had cervical spondylosis, there was no reliable evidence that it had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time. Medical evidence from 2018 showed the disc protrusion had shrunk and was no longer compressing nerves. The claimant had no sickness absence, stopped taking painkillers in 2020, reported being '100% better' in a medical questionnaire, and provided no credible evidence that any current symptoms were caused by the cervical spondylosis. The tribunal did not find the claimant to be a credible witness on the extent of her symptoms.
Facts
The claimant was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis with nerve compression in 2017. By May 2018, an MRI showed the disc protrusion had nearly completely shrunk and was no longer compressing nerves. The claimant stopped taking painkillers in 2020 and completed a medical questionnaire for the second respondent stating she had 'no episodes of nerve pain since' and was '100% better with neck and arm'. She had no sickness absence related to the condition and continued working in physical roles including car valeting and inspection. The relevant period for the claim was July 2023 to January 2025.
Decision
The tribunal found that while the claimant had cervical spondylosis as a physical impairment, there was no reliable evidence that it had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time. The tribunal did not find the claimant to be a credible witness regarding the extent and cause of any symptoms she claimed to experience. Medical evidence showed the condition had resolved by 2018, and there was no evidence it had recurred or was likely to recur. The claimant therefore did not meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
A past diagnosis of a condition causing disability-level impairment is insufficient without contemporaneous evidence that substantial adverse effects continue or have recurred at the relevant time; claimant credibility and consistency with medical records are critical where medical evidence is limited.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600366/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- car valeting and car inspection
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No