Mr. Commissioner Henty agreed with me that it was an error in point of law just to rely upon the IB50 when considering the PCA. In this case the claimant/appellant scored himself 0 points on the IB50 but did add a statement indicating some physical restrictions without actually addressing the descriptors individually. The IB85 report and Decision maker awarded 3 points. Although ne actual decision as yet, the SoS too agrees that this is an error in point of law and invites a referal back to another appeal.

what happened Paddy - did the EMP not do an assessment?

jj

Sorry for the delay in responding but you know what it's like. Yes there was medical report done; but isn't often the case that the medical examiner is guided on what to consider by the information on the IB50 and not to bother with anything else, no matter what the reality is. In this case the claimant ticked the boxes saying no problem with this and that descriptor. As I say, although he did this, he did send a further written statement seperate from, but attached to the IB50 indicating disabilities that the medical examiner and the decision maker apparently decided not to take acoount of. Thus, it would appear, a potential error in point of law. (well I hope so anyway)