right then, have a client who suffers from "irlams" syndrome and scotopic sensitivity, also has some problems with feet which attracted 10pts under standing 7 and walking 3, so only 5pts to find.

previous pca scored him full 15pts for Vision descriptor (c) - 16pt print - on basis tht irlams syndrome means he cannot make out written/printed text. to my mind this is not the true meaning of the Vision descriptors and he was lucky to get points for such.

Irlams sydrome makes it very difficult to distinguish the shape of letters particualrly black/white print - cl now reads much easier with yellow tinted glasses and/or yellow plastic wallet over printed page.

scotopic sensitivity - brings on symptoms which can easily fit under "fits" descriptor BUT only under the incorrect type of light. client is fully aware of cetain shops in the area tht he cannot go into and has no voluntary control over the episodes other than the ability to avoid situations where he will be affected.

taking the "all-work" test to extrremes, providing thee job is in natural light he'll have no problems

fortunately due to phys problems in feet i feel confident we can get further points (rising/200m walking) and am just cautious about presenting the above problems only for trib to dismiss them out of hand

all comments welcome

Hi Jason,

I don't think you're onto a complete loser with this and linking it into the vision descriptor, but you'll need to put together a well-reasoned argument. Some of the commissioners decisions mentioned in the annotation to the IFW regs schedule do allow at least some hope - but it will depend on how bad your client is affected.

Initially, I wasn't going to post as I couldn't think of anything to say, but then I looked up these conditions on the net. Your 'Irlams' is actually 'Irlen' and it seems, from my limited research, that they are one and same thing.

I find this site: http://www.hale.ndo.co.uk/scotopic/ gave a useful, but brief, insight - from a sufferer's perspective, and this site: http://www.irlen.com/sss_main.htm a useful scientific background.

I might also be looking at the following potential points scoring areas:

Good Luck

Mental Health - some of the descriptors would fit, but would you get any MH related diagnosis?

Rising from sitting and Bending and kneeling - are there any balance problems for your client (remember, the chair must have NO arms which would aid balance)?

Manual dexterity - maybe issues with depth perception would cause difficulties with this descriptor

thanks for the reply and links - after reading 2nd one im more inclined to go with the "fits" descriptor, assuming im write tht periods of IFW tht pre-date Howker will be assessed under the old wording (still struggling to get my head round the various decisions that have followed tht case)

will defintitely have a shot at vision descriptor also, i think it can be too easy to focus entirely on literal interpretations without looking "outside the box" (no pun intended) - as per your suggestion of manual dexterity

MH des's could definitely apply, but no diagnosis given by GP

Not too sure about test case rules.

No clear why your asking the Howker question...? I assume that your case is a long-running on, the initial decision pre-dating Howker?

I think that if a particular descriptor is before a tribunal, they must follow whatever the situation is now, even if caselaw has changed since the inital decision was made. After all, if that was not the case, you could still go to commissioners and still rely on Howker.

I think the anti-test case rules just prevent old decisions being re-opened on the basis of new interpretations.

Regarding interpreting each of the descriptors post-Howker, you probably need to check each of the relevant CD's. Not all of the amendments have been confirmed as unlawful, and I don't think they have all been considered. A search in the Briefcase or news areas will probably show up the relevant decisions, or go back through the welfare rights bulletins - there's probably been an article summing up the situation sometime in the recent past.