Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Carton of liquid open or closed
Does anyone know if there is a definition of a “carton of liquid”?
Is it a sealed carton or an open carton?
Many thanks
Elaine
I presume that you are looking at activity 4 of Sch2. - I’m intrigued , I always though that the ‘carton of liquid’ was just a rough measure of the weight of the object being moved but the exact wording of the descriptor specifically says ‘a carton full of liquid’ not ‘such as a carton full of liquid’ like it does for the infamous carboard box in 4c). This being the case could it be argued that if the claimant can’t hold the carton steadily enough to prevent the contents spilling all over the place then they should get points for 4a) or 4b)?
Thank you Pete C,
I’ve checked the WCA Handbook, the advice is to consider co-ordination too when deciding this descriptor.
My client has a coarse resting tremor to both arms and is unable to move a full mug of coffee because he would spill it. A regular mug is 0.35 litres; his lesser filled mug is 0.25litres - this is stated in the appeal papers. My thoughts are 15 points as cannot pick up and move a 0.5 litre carton full of liquid.
The WCA Handbook states the ability to pour is not relevant - so does this therefore allude to the carton not being sealed?
Interesting point, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Is the word “carton” also important? Is a carton inherently something that has a small aperture, like a carton of orange juice or is it a carton completely open at the top, which is something you’re rather unlikely to come across?
Interesting point, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Is the word “carton” also important? Is a carton inherently something that has a small aperture, like a carton of orange juice or is it a carton completely open at the top, which is something you’re rather unlikely to come across?
Just to develop that point a little further - a ‘carton’ does not have a handle (like Edmund i’m thinking of those waxed paper paper cartons of orange juice) so it might be considered a test of an ability to grip as well as lift/move. Gripping something like an orange juice carton is likely to be more difficult that using the handle of a mug .
I don’t think that the WCA handbook can be considered an authorative statement of law but it might be considered persuasive about what Parliament thought it meant to say when legislating.
That sounds right. I think it is a test of the ability to grip and lift a reasonably handy sized object without a handle that weighs about half a kilo (A) or one kilo (B). I think the test should allow you to argue that the carton could be open. So, if the person has the power to grip and the strength to lift the open carton but they have a tremor to the extent that the liquid spilled then they may not be said to be able to complete the task reliably and to an acceptable standard.
Having said that, if the test is envisaged in a workplace environment, the ‘job’ of moving the cartons is likely to involve sealed cartons so a small tremor might not be a problem. However, if the tremor was so bad that the person dropped the cartons then that would be a different matter.
... the exact wording of the descriptor specifically says ‘a carton full of liquid’...
Once a single drop has spilled, it is no longer full.
Having said that, if the test is envisaged in a workplace environment, the ‘job’ of moving the cartons is likely to involve sealed cartons so a small tremor might not be a problem. However, if the tremor was so bad that the person dropped the cartons then that would be a different matter.
Consider a work environment such as catering where a person could be required to picking up and move or transfer an open carton full of liquid.
The concept of ‘transfer’ only comes in it at 4C. You don’t have to transfer the carton (whatever that means) just move it.
Thank you all for the dissection of this descriptor; it has given me lots of angles for attack and defence.
Elaine
This hearing is tomorrow and I have had a late supplementary sub from DWP which I will need to respond to verbally tomorrow.
They state he can lift a full kettle with both hands which will apparently be well in excess of 1 litre.
My immediate thoughts are a kettle has a handle - a carton does not.
A kettle is a kettle and it is not a carton.
Plus there is nothing in the papers stating that the kettle he picks up is full.
I’ll post outcome as soon as I have it.
Totally agree. Had the lawmakers wanted to say kettle, they could have. To echo earlier posts, I would suggest a carton is a handle free, soft or semi rigid sided container. If you are likely to spill, you cannot discharge the ability and points should follow. Good luck!
Thanks Steve!
Ok, got the decision in the post today - absolutely no points for lifting a carton.
12 points for two other descriptors only.
At the hearing the judge said I had an interesting argument about the carton and she had never thought about this. However, she took the line that the carton should be assumed closed because it is not described as open - well it’s not described as closed either….
Anyway, written reasons being requested.
There’s a Schroedinger’s cat argument here of course; how do you know the cartons full without opening it?
There’s a Schroedinger’s cat argument here of course; how do you know the cartons full without opening it?
If it’s a quantum carton it is both empty and full at the same time, depending on the observer.
This might explain some of the discrepancies in ATOS medicals - they weren’t ordinary medicals after all, they were QUANTUM medicals where the very fact that someone is observing the phenomenon alters the phenomenon.