DLA seem to think so... they said my client's condition is expected to improve. He has an upper limb amputee and uses a prosthetic for cosmetic effect only.

As far as I'm aware my client is neither a crustacean nor a cephalopod so I'm unsure how this conclusion was reached.

Any ideas?

No they don't, but they may well become better at using their prosthesis, or learn to compensate with the unaffected limb.

When I was in practice we had a young client (early 20s) who had lost a leg in an accident (caused by a drunk driver who was killed in the accident). Our lad acted as a test driver for our local artificial limb company and had a series of the latest in high tech prostheses to try out. He got so good at using them that he could play squash nearly as well as before the accident - which was very well - and his damages for the injury were not as high as might have been expected because his loss of practical function was, by five years on, remarkably low. That won't apply to everyone of course; but it isn't impossible.

I wasn't particularly looking for a serious answer here because as I said, my client's prosthetic is for cosmetic effect only. In the 12 years or so my client has been getting DLA, he's had 6 renewals or supersessions and there has been no change to his needs.

On the last occassion, he gave an unsurprisingly angry response to the renewal and lost the lot - high mob/mid care.

maybe renewal was linked to the high mob? Is the condition that restricts his walking one which may improve?

After over 10 years since his accident client has reached maximum recovery so further improvement that will lessen mobility needs is not very likely. Similarly, I think this length of time is sufficient for the client to adapt all he's going to.

Sometimes with DLA it seems that it's "just poker"!

as far as i'm aware not even God has ever intervened with an amputee case and regrown a limb

Lesson to be learned - don't make an angry response on a renewal claim!

Regarding not wanting a serious reply. Why not? I also fail to see how upper limb amputation leads to high rate mobility, unless there are other conditions. Would the lack of an upper limb necessarily give rise to a need for frequent attention or continual supervision? Did has angry response in the renewal claim involve being sarcastic and saying that no problems with care or mobility?

beats me, Tony. perhaps your 'mistaken for another species' theory may offer the likeliest explanation, after all...: - )

I once had a client (long term effects of brain injury) whose middle rate care (on renewal) was knocked down to the lowest with subsequent loss of SDP.

On receipt of the decision he trashed his home and spent the weekend in the company of the boys in blue locked up in a cell. I then used this incident as part of the revision request to justify returning to middle rate care. Decision revised favourably.

A case of DWP syndrome giving rise to care needs.