I have a client who was recently awarded Middle Care for continual supervision on mental health grounds but no Mobility, though I think she's very clearly entitled to the Lower Rate. I know there's a piece of caselaw from a few years back which looks at how the need for continual supervision also applies when the client is outside but I can't remember anything about it (when, who, for example). Any ideas?

It seems logical to me that the need for continual supervision doesn't go away because someone steps outside their front door- unfortunately, logic and tribunals appear not to go together.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Cheers.

hi crazy feminist

i think you might be thinking of tribunal of commissioner's decision in R(DLA) 4/01 which states that there is nothing to stop attention or supervision needs taken into account for the care component also being taken into account for the lower rate mobility component. Middle care doesn't automatically mean lower mob (although claimants will often be entitled to both); you have to apply the test applicable to each component separately.

cheers ros

And vice versa - there is nothing to stop attention and supervision needs when walking out of doors being taken into account to arrive at the appropriate rate of the care component. A rare example of having it both ways!

thank you very much- I feel an error of law coming on...