This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Narrow construction of DDA "progressive condition" definition

This report relates to 1 case(s)

In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd (23 August 2002), the EAT rules that, in order for an impairment to be said to have resulted from a "progressive condition", such as cancer, within the meaning of the statutory definition of disability, it must be as a direct result of the progressive condition itself and not as a result of the surgery by which the cancer was treated. Accordingly, a man who had an operation for prostate cancer which left him with incontinence did not fall within the progressive condition definition because his impairment resulted from the surgery rather than the cancer itself.