Mobility Component - DLA

I thought this had been sorted years ago by a number of Comms decisions - but recently we have been getting DM & Tribunal decisions which go along the lines of we accept that Mr XX is in pain etc, but not to the extent that he is VUTW - this after we have sent copies and/or extracts of CD's etc.....

Now I thought the test was how far can a person walk without severe discomfort - either having to stop due to the onset of, or having exacerbated their severe discomfort to the point where they cannot continue.......even when we bring up the subject of what happens after a person has stopped and rested, this doesn't seem to be taken into consideration...

Is it just us or are others noticing this ......

Not sure if it may be tribunals are being influenced by the following interpretation of the VUTW test.

In CSDLA/554/2005, Commissioner Parker, whilst agreeing that when a claimant stops and how far a claimant walks before experiencing severe discomfort are both evidentially relevant to the test holds that, following her earlier decision in R(DLA)4/03, the correct test is the maximum distance a claimant is able to walk out of doors without suffering severe discomfort then or afterwards, and yet an acceptable speed, distance and time and whether, having regard to such findings, the claimant can be described as 'virtually unable to walk' -

'That a claimant suffers severe discomfort at times during his walking does not necessarily mean that he is virtually unable to walk if, overall and having regard to all the relevant factors, he is able to walk to an appreciable extent and in a reasonable way without causing such severe discomfort. Walking achieved only at the expense of severe discomfort is discounted.'

Now as you know Michael I am not a conspiracy theorist: but it seems to me that over the past whatever it is years there has been a hardening of tests being applied in many aspects of claims to DLA, AA etc. and particularly regarding the PCA. It may appear to a cynic, and of course I'm not one as you know, that some decision makers, some appeal tribunals, some Commissioners, appear to be taking their role as "keepers of, or protectors of, the public purse" as holding primacy over whether a person may or may not qualify for benefit and the importance of legal definitions and supportive case law seems less and less important to them. I do not think I am alone in noticing that some tribunals these days do seem to be a whole lot harder to convince of the merit of any particular case. I hear representatives throughout the land groaning over non sympathetic or difficult tribunal members. Tribunal members who seem hell bent on finding reasons for not allowing appeals; even justifying bad decisions with contrived, illogical or simply daft reasoning. Indeed, a recent case of mine went to a Commissioner who opined that a tribunal's view of evidence appeared to be in the realms of fantasy. Do people agree with me or is it just that I'm not a morning person?
There; I feel better now that I've got off my chest. Have a good day everyone. Thank you.

One thing to watch for is assuming that any level of pain necessarily equates to severe discomfort. While moderate pain might (and I only say might) amount to severe discomfort, and severe discomfort includes many things that are not pain (notably breathlessness and possibly nausea), mild pain isn't. Tribunals do sometmes see submissions suggesting that it is. Severity is all.

Brigid