I have a client who had an ongoing problems linked to complications from a hernia operation. She failed the PCA with 0 points and on the IB50 she stated she had no mental health problems.

However, shortly after the PCA she was assessed by the local community health team who made a diagnosis of depression with somatisation. This actually makes sense because it explains much of her lack of motivation to do things, which she always said was down to physical pain.

My question is, at the appeal can we try and get her points via mental health descriptors when she was assessed purely by the physical ones and she explicitly stated on the IB50 that she did not have any mental health problems.

Obviously, I have put in a new claim based on a new diagnosis but would still like to win the appeal.

Many thanks.

Don't be miss led by some interpretation of past case law,which states a tribunal must be cautious of exploring mental health issues that were not flagged up at the time of the appeal.If you have solid medical evidence that mental health issues where releavent to the period before the PCA examination then it is relevant at the appeal.

It is very commonly the case that a person with an undiagnosed m.h. condition will not declare that when they fill in the form. Many with a DIAGNOSED one don't!. She would not have known she had it, therefore didn't declare itr. That in no way implies that she did not have it at the time of the decision, it was merely undiagnosed at the time.

Many people with backache will not declare that they have arthritis, but a later diagnosis could subsequently confirm that that was the problem.

Many people think that all they should mention is the one condition that they are "on sick with", and ignore all other conditions.

The Tribunal can go up to the dcn. under appeal, (generally this will be after the date of the E.M.P. Report). Is the new assessment before or after the date of decision?.

In either event, the points above are still relevant.

But bit of decent medical evidence will help a lot - especially if it can show that the condition is longstanding. I got a decision set aside by Commissioner Mesher, no less, when it only came to light after the appeal that he had a longstanding alcohol abuse problem - and a very nice helpful GP (He won hands down the second time, purely on the GP's letter).

I have got some good medical evidence in this case with a definite diagnosis of depression (from both her G.P. and a psychiatrist) but both were made about 5 months after the medical. What's interesting is that the psychiatrist has also mentioned somatisation and pretty much inferred that most of her pain comes from that. It's all very relevant for the mental health descriptors but as I originally stated, such a long time after the medical.

Thanks.

However it sounds as if the psychiatrist has finally found a reason for what must have been previously inadequately explained pain. If the pain was there at the time of the medical, and the pain is now considered to have been casued (or aggravated) by somatisation all along, I really don't think you have a problem. There may well be a long history of referral to various medical specialisms without any success: can the GP confirm this?