Obesity surgery plea heads to Supreme Court as judges back trust’s refusal

Grandfather Tom Condliff, of Talke, Staffordshire, whose life expectancy has been severely reduced by weight-linked health problems, yesterday lost his Court of Appeal battle for the operation.

His lawyers reacted swiftly, saying they would now apply to take his case to the highest court in the land and hopes to have permission this week.

North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) rejected an application by Mr Condliff, who is aged 62 and stands 6ft 2in, for funding for a laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery.

His lawyers say he is obese due to the drugs he takes for long-term diabetes.

He suffers from 13 illnesses, takes 28 different drugs and uses breathing masks and inhalers.

The PCT decided last October his body mass index (BMI) of 43 was not high enough to qualify for surgery under its individual funding request (IFR) policy.

Mr Condliff’s lawyers say the policy itself is legally flawed and breaches his rights to “private and family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But in April, Judge Waksman QC, sitting at the High Court in London, rejected the human rights argument and refused to quash the PCT’s decision.

Yesterday three appeal judges – Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lady Justice Hallett and Lord Justice Toulson – also backed the PCT.

Lord Justice Toulson said he wished to echo Judge Waksman’s “very considerable sympathy” for Mr Condliff, whose witness statement showed his condition “has seriously compromised his independence and dignity of life in ways which have an inevitable impact on his relationship with his wife”. But he added: “The sad fact remains that the PCT on proper medical advice does not consider his condition to be exceptional for someone with his diabetes, obesity and co-morbidities. As a medical judgment that is not challenged.”

The judges refused Mr Condliff permission to take his case to the Supreme Court but he can still ask the court to consider it on the basis that it raises issues of general public importance.

David Lock QC, for the PCT, had argued health authority chiefs were entitled to make such decisions without taking into account non-clinical and social factors.