Have client suffers epilepsy, agreed loss on concientiousness 2 in 6 months awarded 12 points on PCA. Loses control of bladder when in seizure no points awarded under continence. Dept note "only incontinent during fit" is there any basis for depts argument or can I contend that both the loss of conciousness and incontinence have to be assessed umder PCA. Hearing is this PM.

Hi, you would only get points for losing control of bladder if at least once per month, no points for occassionally. Based on the above, twice in 6 months, it would nt be enough anyway even if they do accept they should consider both. sorry if thats a little sceptical. Perhaps the dept were referring to 'only incontinent during fit' in relation to the freqeuncy.

good luck though.

Appeal adjourned for other reasons but frequency of episodes is one of the issues in dispute. PCA assessment was however that client had "no incontinence problems" rather than "loses control of bladder occasionally" Client evidence is that he has weekly episodes at night that he is only aware of in morning when he realises that he has lost control of his bladder. Informally deparment presenting officer remains adamant that loss of control during fit not "true incontinence" and states that there is case law to support but unable to give case reference. If this the view of decision makers in this area it has wider implications than just this case.

Have drawn attention of presenting officer to para 6 of C14/00-01(IB)available from http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/law_and_legislation/nidoc_database.htm
were Mr Toner of the decision Making and Appeals Unit stated that "he would concede that there might be some extreme cases were a person not medically incontinent, might encounter circumstances where through another disability he lost control"
awaiting response

with that degree of epilepsy, is he not on DLA care & mobility as well? should get both ....

What exactly is "true incontinence"? and why is that term important to this descriptor? The legislation doesn't mention incontinence as far as I can see.

The Schedule containing the physical descriptors mentions continence as the activity but the descriptors relate to either no voluntary control, or frequency of losing control. I think the issue is more than just a medical definition of incontinence, because that word is not used. It is about loss of control of bladder/bowel and what that can encompass. The case law in this area even allows for a descriptor to apply where there is no "accident" - for example CIB/14332/96, which deals with bowel incontinence and urgency, so not really relevant to your appeal. But my point here is the DWP seem to have a very narrow view of what is required under this physical area. On a side note I have yet to convince my local tribunal's of this either, so may be I am wrong!

If the DWP are stating it is not true incontinence I would think they need to state why and if they want to rely on CDs these would need to be declared and copies given if not reported.

You mention s/he also has incontinence at night. What is the cause of this? If the DWP think its enuresis, that's excluded from the physical activity, so wont be taken in to account.

But if the client has a condition which is affecting the functioning of his/her bladder, surely this is incontinence? Bonner p785 discussed what is meant by this and may be useful to you