Under the principle that a claimant for AA/DLA does not have to receive the care or attention to qualify for AA/DLA, they just need it; if a claimant's condition is being assessed by medical practitioners and trials of different treatments proved to be ineffective for the period that their claim was refused and the treatment which eventually proved to be effective took over 20 minutes of attention from some one during the night to administer, could it be argued that though they didn't receive the treatment that took 20 minutes of someones attention when their claim was refused, and the new treatment is a change of circumstances, they did need it and therefore should qualify for AA from the date their claim was refused.

Do you know any cases that might be used to back up that argument?

Thank you

R(DLA) 3/01 have a look at this.

argues the opposite though unfortunately. i used it for the opposite argument that the effects of a new drug shouldnt be taken into account by tribunal.