Hi, I've new to the site, and supporting a deaf person (BSL user) who initiated a dla appeal for low rate mobility, and has now asked for my help in my work role as advocate/community support. I'm a bit of a generalist and am not an expert in the area of Welfare rights. Therefore would be so grateful to receive the benefit of your collective wisdom. DM says:
"Evidence considered from a previous appeal tribunal held in 2005
Then had a hearing loss of 74%. (DM used 4 yr old audiograms!)
Hearing aids should still be effective out of doors.
Evidence indicating that he does not have a learning disbaility or any mental health issues."

I know this is a tricky (or hopeless) one because cl has reasonable English and not regarded as prelingually deaf. But hoping to use i) evidence from audiologist (who prepared new audiogram which showed a rapid deterioration) i.e. cl is now boarderline severe/profoundly deaf ii) diary from cl illustrating dangers and problems in unfamiliar areas iii) case law. iv) inneffectiveness of hearing aid out of doors. v) inaccuracy as to describing hearing loss in terms of %. Hoping to focus on cl not being able to communicate difficulties and unable to access help etc if lost. Not sure whether to include fear and anxiety? Apologies for rambling. Any help or thoughts gratefully received. Am I on the right track or drinking at the last chance corall?

I don't know how to link to a discussion thread on this website, but you should find something useful if you go to the second page of the DLA discussion topics and look at the discussion last answered on 3 September about prelingually deaf clients.

Here is the link to the thread that ariadne2 has highlighted -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=5986&mesg_id=5986&page=2

Hi Ken,
Thanks a lot for the link. Much appreciated.

Thanks Ariadne2, I checked out the discussion page you mentioned, really helpful stuff. Still struggling on the 'fear and anxiety' aspect i.e.not sure whether to use that terminology or shift the focus to the communication problems. Anyway thanks again.

Some years ago, Newcastle city council Welfare Rights service produced a very good self-help pack for deaf people.

I'm not sure if they still do it, but I would certainly recommend asking. It has some detailed examples of the specific types of care needs a deaf person has, along with the most relevant commissioners decisions.

I usually only give out certain bits of it, but the whole thing can be used to support a claim and also doubles as an appeal submission (unless it's been substantially altered - it's been a while since I saw a new one).

Newcastle welfare rights is here:

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/welfarerights

Hi Tony,

Thanks a lot for the info including the link. I've already logged on and downloaded a copy of the self help pack which I can see is quickly going to become invaluable.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Fear and anxiety can only help in qualifying for the lower rate of the mobility component if they are symptoms of a mental illness, not the result of a physical disability. Tough law change introduced into Regulation 12 of the DLA regs in 2002 (gosh, was it as long ago as that?)

Thanks again for the clarification. My problem is that when supporting a prelinually deaf client (who does not have a mental health illness) with completion of the mobility section, even though they are using sign vocabulary (I translate this into written English) indicating fear and anxiety, I am extremely wary of using these words/terminology. It might unwittingly lead the decision maker down the wrong path as it were. Guess I ought to focus on the severe communication difficulties, and not mention fear or anxiety? Still scouring the Newcastle pack for guidance on this point... As an afterthought, I have asked the client (subject of this original message) to prepare a diary so we can illustrate the problems and sometimes dangerous situations that he encounters when on unfamiliar routes. Do you think this will be useful? Thank you for your patience! And...apologies for the length of this message.

Diaries are usually quite helpful for DLA claims and I nearly always recommend doing one.

I think you're right to steer towards ignoring the fear/anxiety bit because, as you say, these issues can indeed lead DM's down the wrong path. A good example of this, with both DM's and tribunals, is over-reliance on walking distances for the high rate mobility component, which can lead to DM's 'forgetting' to apply the other aspects of the virtually unable to walk test.

However, if the fear and anxiety is severe enough to prevent the person going out at all, then I would argue that it is a mental disablement and as such should be considered in addition to the communication issues and other dangers. It is very likely however that a formal diagnosis will be sought before it is considered, although it is not necessary if it can be established that the fear and anxiety is sufficient to result in a disablement - of which not going out due to the fear/anxiety probably is!

There are various CD's which deal with the definition of disablement and whether or not a formal diagnosis is required.

If appeals is a regular feature of your work, and you don't already have them, I recommend asking your employer to buy CPAG's social security legislation volumes. These are usually the first port of call for all these types of issues and the commentary to the law usually includes a discussion of the most relevant CD's/court cases.

If you don't have them, and you want the bits relevant to this discussion (reg 12), email me (from the link under my username) with your fax number and I'll send you the pages.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply and your sound guidance. What you say about arguing "mental disablement" is really interesting because the whole area of mental illness appears complex and sometimes obscure. One thing I've noticed, although not sure how to broach this subject - is that clients are often not comfortable when the subject of mental disability/iillness (in terms of satisfying the conditions of LRM) is raised and I know many would be extremely reluctant to pursue this type of diagnosis from their medical practitioner. Ultimately it might be all down to how the adviser handles the situation, although I suspect this type of debate could rumble on indefinitely, and I seem to be moving further away from my original query! So I'll just say thank you again.

p.s. I've sent an email - thank you for the offer.