I expect all of us see a lot of BAMS doctors' reports following PCAs on which claimants have scored less than 10 points on the MH descriptors. Fairly frequently the claimant might have been given a point because s/he is scared or anxious that work would bring back or worsen her/his illness. Has anyone ever argued successfully that scoring a point on this descriptor is in effect tantamount to satisfying the terms of reg 27 i.e. being found fit for work would put the claimant at substantial risk?

It's an argument I am considering using in a future appeal so any experiences you could share with me would be very welcome.

Tribunals may be quite suceptible to a Reg 27(b) argument in cases of people who are recovering from a more-or-less severe mental illness and do not by the date of a PCA medical score 10 or more points, but are still vulnerable to a setback if faced with the stress of having to look for work.

There is a substantial difference between someone being afraid of work - they may never have worked or their fears may be based on something groundless, such as the belief that they would have to go back to 60 hours a week in the job that clobbered them in the first place - and the risks from being found fit for work, which in practice means compulsory work-seeking.

Where you have medical evidence of an actual setback since the decision the argument is all the stronger. I've always thought that this particular fact pattern is the most plausible scenario for the use of Reg 27, and tribunals on which I have sat have on occasion used this as a ground for allowing an appeal.

Brigid