Dennison, R (on the application of) v Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the Defendant CCG, which refused to reassess CHC eligibility for Mrs. Dennison, who had funded her care from January 2006 to October 2008. Eligibility determination is based on whether an individual has a 'primary health need.' The court found the CCG's refusal to reassess for May 2007 to March 2008 irrational and unreasonable, quashing that decision but upholding the refusal for March 2008 to October 2008.
Judgment
The Hon Mr Justice William Davis:
The Claimant is the son of the late Lily Dennison. He brings this claim on behalf of his mother’s estate. From January 2006 until her death in October 2008 Mrs Dennison was a resident at Springfield Nursing Home in Bradford. From May 2007 she received some assistance from the Defendant’s predecessor, Bradford and Airedale Primary Health Care Trust (“the PCT”) to cover nursing costs. For the whole of her period of residence at Springfield Nursing Home, she funded the accommodation and non-nursing care costs of the home herself. Had the PCT assessed her as being eligible for continuing health care (“CHC”) the PCT would have funded the entirety of the cost of her residence at the home. In September 2012 the Defendant (“the CCG”) as successor to the PCT was asked by the Claimant to review the position of his mother prior to her death with a view to an assessment being made after the event that she was eligible for CHC throughout her residence at the home. The CCG in due course agreed to assess Mrs Dennison’s position between January 2006 and May 2007. It refused to assess her position between May 2007 and the date of her death in October 2008. The Claimant seeks judicial review of that decision refusing to assess the position from May 2007 onwards.
Proceedings were issued on the 20 th January 2014. On the 19 th February 2014 Mr Justice Popplewell granted any extension of time that may have been necessary for the bringing of the proceedings. He further ordered that the application for permission should be listed in court as part of a rolled-up hearing, the substantive claim to be considered forthwith in the event of permission being granted. Directions were given in relation to service of evidence. The parties appeared before me fully prepared for a final hearing of the application for judicial review.
Eligibility for CHC is of great significance for any individual resident in a nursing or care home. CHC is not means tested. The most up to date definition of CHC appears in Annex A of the National Framework document published in November 2012.
“A complete package of ongoing care arranged and funded solely by the NHS, where it has been assessed that the individual has a ‘primary health need’. It can be provided in any setting. Where a person lives in their own home, it means that the NHS funds all the care and support that is required to meet their assessed health and care needs. Such care may be provided either wit