Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
walking through pain is not walking to acceptable standard
Totally agree. Most appellants with a mobility issue don’t suddenly develop a first gear way lower than their normal third gear. They’ll do third gear until they have no choice but to change down rapidly as it were. This of course is where the many snapshot reports we see immediately create a problem. “Claimant walked normally” and so on.
That seems to be my standard mantra at appeals,” the HCP report is little more than a snapshot2, I have done this job for 20yrs and heard countless promises to improve the reports , and only to see them get worse.
Is this case then saying that walking with pain may make an applicant eligible for enhanced mobility for PIP because walking with pain was not enough for high rate mobility DLA as one had to experience severe discomfort which is greater than pain as per Casinelli.
Is this case then saying that walking with pain may make an applicant eligible for enhanced mobility for PIP because walking with pain was not enough for high rate mobility DLA as one had to experience severe discomfort which is greater than pain as per Casinelli.
which was always difficult because, frankly, what IS the difference between severe discomfort and severe pain? i never could get it….
The Court of Appeal case stated that you started with pain which was not enough re DLA HRM.The next stage in the pain threshold was severe discomfort which was good enough for DLA HRM and up another level which was severe pain ie greater than severe discomfort and straight forward pain. I guess it was all about what you put in the DLA1 form.
Off course another good point to argue at FTT re enhanced mobility is that descriptors require the client ‘to stand’....
“stand” means stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground;
eg like a soldier on parade.
Therefore most applicants with spinal injuries or leg problems cannot be expected (to an acceptable standard) to stand upright and therefore would satisfy the descriptor!
The Court of Appeal case stated that you started with pain which was not enough re DLA HRM.The next stage in the pain threshold was severe discomfort which was good enough for DLA HRM and up another level which was severe pain ie greater than severe discomfort and straight forward pain. I guess it was all about what you put in the DLA1 form.
yes i know. but i still couldn’t get it ...... where’s the line between each of those things? since a lot of the time one persons pain is another person’s severe discomfort, and so on…..ditto severe pain….....
I think virtually every HCP assessing either PIP or ESA mobility descriptors never and I quote never report a claimant walking in significant pain or discomfort ? I could go through 50 assessment reports and rarely is this reported as an observation ? . For example The HCP will always report the claimant walked for 30 metres inside the centre and therefore based on the evidence will be able to walk up to 200 metres ? Utter rubbish on several occasions I have witnessed both PIP/ ESA assessments where a claimant could barely walk due to significant pain but this was never reported and had to be challenged rigoursly to revise the initial decision
It’s absurd to allow this to happen , as the recent commissioners decision states walking in pain should be deemed incapable of completing the function reliably & repeatedly , this is also stated in the ESA/ PIP HCP handbooks so why are we constantly battling to overturn such poor assessments and decisions
C Hannon
Perhaps we could have a competition? First person to produce a case where the assessment conceded that the claimant was in severe pain.
else ct
Decision attached and summary from DRUK site http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2013/november/latest-posted-decision-summaries
Edit
My feeling is that the phenomenon quoted at para 13from CPIP/2377/2015 is not that rare at all but reasonably commonplace; what is rare is it being recognised.
here
I have argued successfully that tis decision binds ESA tribunals because it is specific to, an acceptable standard”
Anybody else cited it?
else ct
Decision attached and summary from DRUK site http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2013/november/latest-posted-decision-summaries
Edit
My feeling is that the phenomenon quoted at para 13from CPIP/2377/2015 is not that rare at all but reasonably commonplace; what is rare is it being recognised.here
I have argued successfully that tis decision binds ESA tribunals because it is specific to, an acceptable standard”
Anybody else cited it?
I suspect it has some application but I would probably just cite GL v SSWP [2015] UKUT 503 - where the same Judge makes a very similar point but in an ESA framework (“significant discomfort” rather than “acceptable standard”).