For the mental health descriptor 'is scared or anxious work would bring back or worsen his illness' would claimant meet this test if they were anxious about the effect of work on a PHYSICAL condition e.g. back problems?

I have an appeal where the point has not been awarded on the grounds that it had to be anxiety about 'impact on depression or drug/alcohol abuse rather than back problem'. Has anybody got an opinion if this is the correct approach? (9 points were awarded) Thanks! .. jim

The commissioner in R(IB)2/98 held that -

'... the matters specified in Part II of the Schedule under the heading 'Mental Disabilities', can qualify for 'points' only if they result from 'mental disablement' (reg. 24). In other words, they must not be mere matters of mood but must relate to a recognisable mental disablement, in the nature of an illness and not shared by healthy members of the population. The generality of such a phrase as 'often sits for hours doing nothing' (para. 15(b)), for example, must be restricted to such a state resulting from a definite mental disability.'

As a consequence, I'm not sure whether in your client's case you would therefore need to have it first accepted that he was suffering from a mental illness (albeit one brought on by his physical problems).

Hi Ken, 9 points have been awarded for mental disablement. The claimant had specifically stated to the EMP that he was worried that work would worsen his back condition. Because of this the EMP did not give the point. The medical evidence had then been rejected by DWP in order to query whether the point should have been awarded. The response was that the interpretation was correct because 'this question is on impact on anxiety/depression drug/alcohol abuse rather than back problem'. I'm not sure if this approach is correct although claimant appears to have strong case to get another point elsewhere.

Given they accept there is a mental health problem, I do not see why this should apply as any kind of worry or stress will aggravate the mental health problem. Had there been no mental health problem then no it does not apply.
Also you say there is a back problem, is there an arguement for six physical points so they can combine the 9 mental health with 6 physical points and satisfy the PCA.
i.e. rising from sitting and bending& kneeling ,in descriptors 5a & 6c there is no time frame on the 'sometimes' aspect in as far as it must be sometimes each day.Simply if the sometimes cannot achieve that activity due tioo there physical health problems then the are entitled to 3pts. Also what about climbing stairs 2d could they score 3 points for this. Goodluck.

N.B. The above should say.... I do not see why this should not apply.... sorie I am knot a good tiepist. or good at jokes.

Descriptor 17(f) is that the claimant is:

"scared or anxious that work would bring back or worsen his illness"

Reg 25(3)(b) provides that you cannot score points under a mental health descriptor unless that is the result of some "specific mental illness or disablement"

As others have said, in your case it seems to have been accepted that there is a "specific mental illness or disablement".

The question is whether the guy's fear of work making his back worse is a fear/anxiety that is brought about as a result of this specific mental illness.

If the claimant's fear that work will do his back no good then the question is whether that fear/anxiety is a reasonable one (ie one even a person without a mental health problem might have) or whether it is unreasonable. If the claimant's mental health problems also involve him/her viewing his physical health problems in an anxious way etc then s/he could still get the point for this one.

So to summarise:

1. the fear or anxiety needs to be as a result of a mental illness.
2. The illness that the claimant is scared or anxious about worsening through work can be either that same illness or a physical illness.

If you had to argue this, you could say that the drafter of the regs did not specifically say "mental illness" in the descriptor. Without that, it is not correct to interpret the descriptor other than as set out here.


Martin.