I don't think the court is necessarily saying electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real, or taking a position that it is caused by wifi rather than being psychosomatic. I think the court may be saying, "There is obviously something quite wrong with you, to the point where it's clear you can't work." Which is a subtle nuance that seems to be missing from the coverage I've read on this.<p>Such an approach is not that far away from giving a disability allowance for mental illness, and refreshingly focuses on acknowledging the effect of her 'condition' rather than arguing about the cause.