I've got an appeal hearing next week in connection with a child DLA appeal - the child is 12. The only disability is absence epilepsy. The parent describes these episodes as occuring several times each day for short periods (less than 1 minute usually). I'll be running general arguments around supervision needs and looking for LRM + MRC/HRC but I am expecting difficulties establishing "substantial danger". We are also struggling with lack of medical evidence. I should say the child used to get LRM + MRC but this was stopped on renewal last year (before we became involved).

Has anyone else had any success with appeals for this condition?

Thanks in advance for any pointers - Matthew

I had a successful tribunal for a child who suffered frequent migraines, but may go days without. Focused on effects of medication (made her dizzy/lightheaded), the fact that she needed assistance to administer it, and the consequences of not taking it. R(A)1/83 also useful "The object of supervision is to avoid substantial danger which may or may not in fact arise; so supervision may be precautionary and anticipatory, yet never result in intervention, or may be ancillary to and part of active assistance given on specific occasions to the claimant."

I know a teenager who has absence epilepsy and once had an episode while crossing the street. Good job his mates know about his condition and realised why he was just standing in the middle of the road. Candidate for supervision? I think so.

It is the danger that must be substantial in supervision cases, not the risk. As long as the risk is not so unlikely as to be fanciful (the example sometimes used is of a deaf person who would not be able to hear an intruder at night), you look at the consequences not the frequency of the dangerous event, in this case the seizure. I think LRM for anyone with altered consciousness-type seizures shouldn't be too hard to make out.

And for completeness, for LRM there is no requirement that the supervision required is to avoid the risk of substantial danger. Should get LRM but MRC much more difficult without other aggravating factors.

Thank you all for your contributions. I'll let you know how we get on at the hearing - Matthew.

Appeal lost outright unfortunately - not even LRM. Statement of reasons sought. Thanks again for your contributions - Matthew

Was on holiday so too late to help with you hearing. However I have a 14yr old son with abscence epilepsy and have been on MRC/LRM for years. Latest award was in connection with 'bodily functions' because he needs help to be kept on task in lessons due to poor concentration because of abscences. Always get helpful reports/IEPs from the school about how lessons have to altered e.g. seating plan - near front so teacher can monitor attention, check task understood, help from support assistants and readers for examinations etc. They also montior behaviour/ concentration patterns and report changes to us in case medication levels need adjustment. However this is dependent on relationship of school SEN department and parent.

Thanks again to contributors & Pickering. The appeal was reheard today (previous tribunal decision was set aside). LRM + MRC (continual supervision) awarded for 2 years. Client delighted of course. New consultant's letter swung the care award.

Matthew