Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
ESA descriptor - cannot transfer a light but bulky object
My client has very limited use of her right arm. She went to WCA medical assessment and was awarded 6 points by HCP for picking up and moving activity as cannot transfer a light but bulky object.
Decision-maker:
“I have disagreed with the HCP’s choice of descriptor for picking up and moving things as they awarded 6 points but she (my client) has demonstrated that she could pick up and move an item such as an empty cardboard box by using her left hand and therefore 0 points have been awarded.”
The only way she could possibly do this is by getting hold of one of the sides of the box from the rim. And what if the lid is on the box….will she have to balance it on one hand? I find this ridiculous. I thought the whole intention of this descriptor was to assess the use of upper body and both arms to carry something large.
What do people think?
I agree. The point of the descriptor- or at least what I have always argued- is the ability to perform the action of extending both arms (and swivelling the body) in order to lift and move the item.
Furthermore, if this is how it is going to be interpreted then what is the point of having it as a descriptor. The other descriptors in the picking up activity address lifting ability with one arm.
I will certainly be challenging this.
The descriptor requires the claimant to move said bulky item with the use of upper body and arms plural. If only one arm is usable then the descriptor is met… simples - unless your a DM!
Altered Chaos
What would you say about the applicability of s6(c) of the Interpretation Act, 1978?
Shabir
There was a material change in the descriptors from March 2011, where all reference to the use of hands was removed from this descriptor area.
This followed on from the WCA internal Review in 2009 where it was said, in relation to the “picking up and moving” descriptors -
“The current assessment of an individual’s ability to pick up an object assumes that the individual has two hands. However, in order to complete the activity this need not be the case. For example, an item may be transferred by wedging it against the body, or another limb, to achieve the same outcome. Many amputees choose not to have a prosthetic limb in order to retain the sensation of touch; however they remain able to complete the task. Removing the reference to the use of hands would enable this to be reflected in the descriptor”
The WCA Handbook for HCP’s was amended to say -
“Within the descriptors, the concept of adaptation exists. There is no requirement to have two hands to achieve the tasks outlined in the descriptors. For example in P(c), a person could reasonable manage this by using one hand and supporting the box against another part of their body”
It is likley that the HCP was not following guidance on post March 2011 descriptors, which is why the decision maker disagreed with the HCP choice.
I am not saying that I agree with this, but that is why they are saying what they are saying
Soviet Leader, thanks for the clarification.
But surely if the decision-maker believes my client does not satisfy this descriptor, they need to give a fuller explanation as to why not. All they mention is the left arm and as previously mentioned the descriptor is about more than just one arm.
I just love it. Obviously, clients can use their teeth or alternatively, lie on the floor and use their feet to lift & move the box. Even if they don’t have any feet.
Look you lot, get with it. If you spent less time on here and more time keeping up with government initiatives you would know that A4e are delivering, through the utterly marvellous work programme, intensive courses in telekinesis. Pay attention at the back there.
Altered Chaos
What would you say about the applicability of s6(c) of the Interpretation Act, 1978?
Shabir
I would say it’s relevant however I have never seen s.6(c) raised by a DM or FtT. All FtT that I have repped at in which this descriptor was at issue the panel did not look beyond the wording of the descriptor… and I was not about to put s.9(c) into their thoughts!
My client has very limited use of her right arm. She went to WCA medical assessment and was awarded 6 points by HCP for picking up and moving activity as cannot transfer a light but bulky object.
Decision-maker:
“I have disagreed with the HCP’s choice of descriptor for picking up and moving things as they awarded 6 points but she (my client) has demonstrated that she could pick up and move an item such as an empty cardboard box by using her left hand and therefore 0 points have been awarded.”
The only way she could possibly do this is by getting hold of one of the sides of the box from the rim. And what if the lid is on the box….will she have to balance it on one hand? I find this ridiculous. I thought the whole intention of this descriptor was to assess the use of upper body and both arms to carry something large.
What do people think?
When they say ‘demonstrated’ are they saying that ATOS in fact had a cardboard box to hand for the medical assessment?
If this was the case I would have thought it was incumbent on the HCP to explain the approximate size and weight of the box and how the claimant actually picked it up. If the HCP didn’t do this (and I must admit that I have never heard of ATOS having a suitable empty box on hand before) then how was it ‘demonstrated’ to the DM that she could do so.
On a lighter note if ATOS are going to have a cardboard box on hand does this mean that they will also have a ‘phone, a pound coin, a book, a pen, a computer mouse an alarm clock,three pints of milk and a washing machine on hand as well? I think we should be told!
And a manual wheelchair of course.
Perhaps they should do the whole examination in the local Tesco where all this stuff is on hand, a bit like the motorcycle driving test where they follow you around to see what you do.
Hmmm ..........Tesco’s profits are bit down this year I wonder what sort of consultancy fee I would get for suggesting they take over the medicals.
Every little helps!
I think in this case i would be rather inclined to focus on the claimants ability to pick up a light and bulky object with a reasonable regualarity. After all, you can only hold said object in one hand for so long before the arm would start to ache. Imagine having to move light and bulky objects repeatedly through the day with one hand and a body part…..