Nine categories, one file

By the time someone sends me their file, it is usually enormous. Fifteen years of appointments. Referral letters, imaging, discharge summaries, medication changes, a specialist opinion from 2016 that everything since has been measured against. It feels exhaustive, because living it was exhausting.

Then the decision arrives and says the impairment is not likely to be permanent.

That reads as an insult. It is not meant as one, and it is not a comment on how hard you have tried. It is the outcome of a specific question, asked in a specific way, and answered from the record as it stands. Understanding the question is what turns an unexplained refusal into something you can act on.

Permanence is decided by treatment, not by time

Most people assume permanence is about duration. Ten years of pain, surely, is permanent by any ordinary meaning of the word.

The test does not work that way. It asks whether there is known, available and appropriate evidence-based treatment that would be likely to remedy the impairment. If there is, the impairment is not yet considered permanent, however long it has lasted, and however little the person believes another attempt would help.

That single sentence relocates the whole question. Permanence is not established by how long you have been unwell, or how severe it is, or how many practitioners agree with you. It is established by what has been tried, what it achieved, and what remains untried. Permanence is a treatment history question.

Which means the file has to be able to answer it.

Why pain files are almost always incomplete

Here is the difficulty. Pain care is spread across dozens of separate services, and no single profession holds them together.

A GP manages medication and referrals. A physiotherapist works on movement. A psychologist works on distress. A pain specialist may run procedures. A surgeon considers a structural question. Sleep is mentioned but rarely assessed on its own terms. Nobody is responsible for standing back and asking which parts of the field have been covered and which have never been opened.

So a pain file grows by accident. It records whoever you happened to be referred to, in whatever order the waiting lists allowed. That is not a treatment history. It is a record of the pathways that were available to you.

This is why a file can be enormous and still incomplete. Volume and completeness are different things, and it is entirely possible to have hundreds of pages of treatment concentrated in three areas while three others have never been touched at all. From the inside, that feels like having tried everything. On paper, it reads as a field with holes in it.

I use a framework to stop that happening. Nine categories, held in one place, covering the whole of contemporary pain care.

The nine categories

General health. Weight, fitness, nutrition, smoking, and the other conditions sitting alongside the pain. The record should show whether these were ever addressed as part of the pain problem rather than separately from it.

Pain education. Understanding how persistent pain works. This changes what everything else can achieve, and its absence often explains why other treatments underperformed. The record should show what was explained, and when.

Agency and advocacy. Having a say in your own care, and someone alongside you when you need it. The record should show whether decisions were made with you or for you.

Physical therapies. Movement, exercise, physiotherapy, hands-on treatment. The record should show what was prescribed, whether it was completed, and what changed, not simply that a referral was made.

Psychological therapies. Pain-focused psychological treatment, not treatment for something else. Therapy for depression is not the same as therapy for pain, and a file that records the first does not answer for the second.

Pharmaceuticals. Medication trials, reviews, and taking away what is not helping. The record should show what was tried, at what dose, for how long, and why it stopped.

Procedures and interventions. Injections, specialist referral, surgical options where they apply. The record should show what was considered and, where something was ruled out, the reasoning.

Sleep hygiene. Sleep assessed and treated in its own right, rather than noted as a symptom. Sleep appears in almost every pain file as a complaint and almost never as something that was investigated.

Social prescribing. Connection, purpose, community and work: the supports that sit outside a clinic. The record should show whether the parts of life that pain closed down were ever treated as part of the clinical problem.

What silence does to a file

Read a file against all nine and the gaps become visible. That matters more than it sounds, because of how the permanence question is answered.

If a category has never been opened, nobody can say what it would have achieved. Not you, not your treating team, and not me. The question stays open, and a decision-maker who has an open question in front of them is not permitted to close it by assuming the answer.

So an untouched category is not a gap in your effort. It is an open question on the file, and the delegate has to leave it open. This is the part that catches people, because it means a refusal on permanence is often not a judgment about your condition at all. It is a statement about what the record can and cannot establish.

It is also why a report on its own sometimes cannot carry a decision. A well-argued report can make everything in the file clearer. What it cannot do is answer a question the record never asked.

The same finding, from the opposite direction

There is a second version of this, and it is more common than you would expect.

Some people genuinely have covered the whole field. Every category has been tried, over years, with real effort and real cost. The problem is that the record does not show it: the work is scattered across practices that have closed, clinicians who have moved, and letters nobody kept.

The finding is the same. The file cannot establish what has been exhausted. The remedy is different: not more treatment, but the reconstruction of a history that already exists.

Telling these two apart is most of the work, and it cannot be done by looking at how thick the file is.

What the framework is, and is not

It is not a cure. It is not a checklist you can work through to guarantee an outcome. It does not tell you which category matters most for you, because that depends entirely on your situation, and anyone who claims otherwise is selling something.

What it does is hold the whole field in view at once, so that the parts of it nobody has looked at can be named as gaps rather than mistaken for dead ends. Read that way, nine categories stop being a list of things you could try. They become a map of what your record can currently establish, and what it cannot.

That map is what an Evidence Audit produces.

---

Where this leaves your file

If your records are thorough and the decision still says insufficient information, the problem is likely to be translation rather than treatment. Everything needed may already be documented, in terms that do not match the test being applied.

If your condition is well described but its day-to-day consequences barely appear, the gap is in functional evidence. What the condition costs you cannot be inferred from what it is called.

If reading the nine categories brought two or three to mind that have never been explored, that is the finding this article is about, and it changes what the right next step is.

An Evidence Audit identifies which of the three applies to you, in writing, with the reasoning set out. If you would rather work out whether that fits your situation by talking it through first, the introductory call is free.

Observations drawn from published Tribunal and Court reasons, current as at the compilations cited. Nothing here is legal advice, and nothing here predicts an outcome. Every file turns on its own facts.