I have a client who has cystic fibrosis who was receiving Incapacity Benefit whilst initially doing 'Permitted Work'. After doing this for 26 weeks it was extended a further 26 weeks when he was summoned to the DEA to complete more PW1 Forms and was advised he was suitable for 'Supported Permitted Work'. Subsequently, he was paid benefit for a total of 22 months and then benefit was suspended, stating he did not fall into an exempt category.
However, he had listed his respiratory consultant whom he sees on a regular basis for his medical supervision- falling into the category of 'Regulations IIS (W) (Gen) reg 17 (i) a (ii)...
'which is part of a treatment programme and is done under medical supervision while the person is an in-patient or is regularly attending as an out-patient of a hospital or similar institution'.
Additionally, his Manager at his place of work constantly reviews his condition throughout his work day.
My client has thus far been given at least half a dozen different interpretations of what constitutes an 'Appropriate Person' to supervise their work and indeed, the legislation seems to vary from area to area. At the outset, , my client was advised that his CF Consultant was 'a very appropriate person' and his name was put on the PW1 and officially stamped by the CF Unit. He then received benefit for a further 10 months which has resulted in a potential overpayment of £2, 300 .
An appeal is now in progress and was heard yesterday, 9 months after benefit has been suspended. Needless, to say, a presenting officer did not appear for the DWP and the Chairman was furious !
After some deliberation the Chairman decided it was best to adjourn
pending some further enquiry.
My client asked for clarification on 'what constitutes medical supervision ? and the level of supervision required to qualify?'
The hearing has now been adjourned until May 2006.
My client has had 2 written submissions by the leading consultant in Cystic Fibrosis supporting his appeal and stating that the DWP'S logic is flawed, unjust and irrational.
The Chairman knows that this could be a test case in this area.

Does anyone have experience of a similar case or one that involved 'medical supervision'.
Does anyone KNOW what constitutes medical supervision...?

There seems to be total confusion within the DWP'S own staff base and no-one is giving the answers in order to reach an objective assessment.

Thanks

Dorothy Langman

CF Unit, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield.