Both golf and tennis elbow were chronic strains at those sites, frequently caused by prolonged strain of the forearm muscles and consistent with the duties that Mr G had had to undertake with one arm. Consultant M concluded his report by saying that it was reasonable to conclude that Mr G had developed his condition as a result of continued occupational strain made worse by the fact that. On 25 March DSS wrote to Mr G telling him that his claim for IIDB in respect of beat elbow had been disallowed.
Mr G appealed through his solicitors against that decision and on 22 June it was accepted that Mr G satisfies the occupational Rental Property Depreciation conditions.It was decided that the question as to whether or not he was suffering from beat elbow should be referred to an AMA. In his statement to the AMA Mr G said that he had worked as a welder for 18 years but his last job had involved heavy work. He has developed pain in the right elbow which in his opinion had been caused by carrying heavy equipment.
The AMA found that he was not suffering from a PID and had not so suffered at any time since 1 November 1979. On 17 February the then Minister for Social Security and the Disabled wrote to Mr G’s then constituency Member replying to a letter he had sent to the then Minister on 15 December 1991.The then Minister gave the background to the case and explain why Mr G’s claims for IIDB has been disallowed. Either the then Member or Mr G could submit evidence to the Council if they so wished.
On 9 March DSS wrote to Mr G telling him that IIDB could not be awarded to him as the AMA had found that he was not suffering from beat elbow. They enclosed a summary of the decision and said that he could appeal to a MAT. Meanwhile, Mr G had written on 23 February saying that he wished to appeal to a MAT. On 13 May DSS headquarters replied to Mr G apologising for the delay in dealing with his claim following his appeal.