Client is regularly visiting partner in NHS hospital with serious condition.

No claim for DLA/CA yet, as too early. Client claimed ESA (stress), but unlikely to hit the descriptors in the long run. So, am looking at IS regs, schedule 1(3):

"Persons temporarily looking after another person. A person who is... (b) looking after a member of the family who is temporarily ill'

Nothing in DM Guide to clarify, except "seek medical evidence if there is any doubt"

My question is whether the fact that the partner is in hospital will disqualify client under this route. Doctors have said that client's visits are therapeutic to partner (neuro condition).

Wondering if this is straighforward route or whether people have run into problems through challenges to definition of 'caring'?

I would guess this means looking after as in the carer's allowance sense, but for someone who doesn't qualify for DLA because their period of disability is not expected to last long enough. There doesn't seem to be any case law on the point.

Thanks Ariadne.

Can see ESA having an impact on a lot of situations, where historically, people have been signed off with stress for difficult domestic situations, so alternative routes might be useful in short-term situations.

Wed 10-Mar-10 12:15 PM by ros.white

hi.

i'm not sure that 'looking after' is the same as 'caring' but for short term. i think if 'caring' was meant, the heading of para 3 of schedule 1B would say 'temporarily caring for' not 'temporarily looking after'.

also see CIS/4312/2007 -
' “Looking After”

12. The tribunal accepted that the claimant cooked special food for her husband (although it made the unlikely finding that he was “fully” able to cook for himself without taking account of periods of fatigue or those when he would be in need of or undergoing or recovering from dialysis), washed his clothes, got his medicines from the pharmacist, and seemed to accept her evidence that she sometimes had to take him to the toilet, and that he slept a lot, and suffered from nausea and vomiting.

13. In the submission of 14th March 2008 to the Commissioner, the Secretary of State stated that: “It is my submission that the question for determination is not whether the claimant is looking after her husband, I submit there is no doubt she is …” (paragraph 8 on page 56). I agree. The tribunal’s conclusion that she was not looking after her husband was unreasonable on the facts that it had found and in the circumstances of this case.'


i think this makes it clear that is a question of fact in each case and so depends on level of input your client has into 'looking after' partner. if s/he's there a lot and does a lot for him/her then i would think it was strongly arguable.

That's useful too Ros, think we could make a case out on those grounds when push comes to shove, as medics are saying the daily visits are therapeutic to the treatment.

Not sure if we will have chance to test the theory, as all depends on how long to hospital discharge, thence (DLA/CA possibility and/or how long to ESA appeal - only at ESA50 stage so far, so, going to keep IS route in the cupboard, but feel a it bit more positive now...