Hello, I'm new to the Forum and I need some help from you experts please!
I'm dealing with a DLA appeal for someone with fibromyalgia. He was turned down for both components. I wrote to his doctor and the letter focuses on the fact that client "takes significantly longer than he normally would" to attend to his bodily functions. The doctor also says that he's able to prepare a meal but it would take him 2 hours.
I remember seeing a case where it was decided that if something takes an unreasonable amount of time then the client should be deemed not to be able to perform the activity in question at all.
I'm looking for some case-law to cite to the DWP in my covering letter where I attach the medical report to have the decision looked at again.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Many thanks

Bea

Because DLA regulations tend to be so open to interpretation, many of the descriptors have been defined by Commisioners and higher Court decisions.

In this case and in relation to Mobility, find a Court of appeal decision relating to a Mr Cassinelli - I think the reference is R(M) 2/92 - you'll find it on this site - their Lordships went to considerable lengths to define "severe discomfort" and in one paragraph Lord Justice Stuart-Smith stated

"As I have said, it is not suggested that he is or was unable to walk; nor is it suggested that the exertion required in walking would constitute a danger to his life or likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his health. So we can concentrate on sub-paragraph (ii) of regulation 3(1)(a). Taking into account the factors there set out (distance, speed, length of time and manner in which Mr. Cassinelli was able to walk) was his ability to walk out of doors an ability to walk without severe discomfort? If not, then he was virtually unable to walk".

There are numerous decisions which relate to both mobility and care componernts, which I will try to dig out tomorrow from our little library of helpful decisons...that's if I get a spare minute and no one else comes up with some other references in the meantime ....

...also have a look at

CI/95 (IB) Although this was a IB case, paragraph 7 quite rrightly raises the principle of "reasonable regularity" - the Commissioner saying

"Accordingly, as I see it, there must be an overall requirement of "reasonableness" in the approach of the Tribunal to the question of what a person is or is not capable of doing, and this may include consideration of his ability to perform the various specified activities most of the time. To that extent "reasonable regularity" may properly be considered."

CDLA/1714/2005 - Cooking test

CDLA/4958/2002 - Cooking test - discusses irrelevance of slotted spoons etc - this is most useful as it asks the most simple question of all - if you use a slotted spoon, who lifts the pans on and off the cooker - other than the claimant.....

This an extract from Derbyshire CC's 'DLA and AA Caselaw Pack'

"reasonably required - length of time taken important

CDLA/2481/95 endorsed the DWP's submission which stated "I submit that it was incumbent on the tribunal to make findings of fact on how long it took the claimant to attend to his own bilidy functions and also how long it would take him to attend to his bodily functions with assistance from another person. I submit that once these findings of fact have been make the tribunal needed to go on to explain and decided whether the help claimed was reasonably required. It is my submission that the lngth of time taken for a person to attend to thier bodily functions can determine whether help is reasonably required. I submit that this is a matter of fact and degree and that there comes a point when if it takes so much longer that help can only considered to be reasonably required. I submit that the insufficient findings of fact in this respect constitute an error of law."

See also CA/1481/03 and CA/14336/1996

You guys are stars! Thank you so much, will definitely be using a couple of these decisions. Keep your fingers corssed for me!