Hi, I'm new to the forum and hope someone out there can help me. I have a client who has Narcolepsy (tendency to fall asleep/episodes of unresponsiveness). he won his IB appeal in 2007 on grounds of meeting descriptor 14 " remaining concious without having epiletic or simiar seisures during waking moments" (once per month). 2 months later his case was re-examined by IB Dpt and he went through medical etc again and benefit was disallowed. Decision maker and Examining doctor said he had no fits or seizures and desriptor refers to these rather than loss of conciousness. GP stated clients medication (Modinfinal) seemed to show some sign of improvment in his condition. So while he was mediacally assessed his condiiton had improved somewaht but since IB medical, he has come off it as he believed it was causing irritability and paranoia. We are now awating an appeal date.

The decion maker staes that the descriptor refers to fits/seizures rather than loss of conciousness and client doesnt have epilpsey. Although he falls asleep sometines, he is being treated for Nacolepsy.

I have read the wider definition of seizure in R(IB)2/07 by a Tribunal of Commissioners which appears helpful. On the last page of the decision, reference is made to a comment by a Commissioner Walker when he referred to "irresistible sleep" in the case CSIB/44/1997. I have tried to locate this decison on the internet without success. Would anyone have a copy? Also has anyone been involved in a similiar case, and what if client stops medication that seemed to ameliroate his symptoms at the time evidence was gathered but subsequently stops treatment? Any help or suggestions on this case would be much appreciated. Many thanks

Hi Thelma,

I too could not find the CD you are after but that may be because the amendments made to regulation 27 re; descriptor 14 made it less helpful.

It might be worth re-looking at B(IB)2/07....

the Tribunal of Commissioners conclude that -
'... a person has an episode of 'altered consciousness' when he or she is no longer properly aware of his surroundings or his condition, so as to be incapable of any deliberate act.
We also hold that 'seizures' are involuntary, overwhelming and sudden and that the phrase 'similar seizures' is to be construed by reference to the similarity of the effects of the seizures to epileptic seizures, including the degree of suddenness of the loss or alteration of consciousness but without consideration of whether the seizures are characterised by the discharge of cerebral neurones.'

I would argue your client fits the above description.
Hope this helps!!
Chaos