Client in early 70's has Osteo-arthritis in shoulders, hips (needs a hip replacement)and knee's. Spends virtually all her waking hours in her chair reading, because of lack of mobility and sitting eases the pain.

Uses the stairs once in the morning and to go to bed at night, some times will sleep in armchair. Client reliant on one walking stick and leaning on furniture, cannot carry objects at sametime, cannot bend down to pick up objects from floor, reliant on friends and neighbours to pick stuff up for her. Goes outdoors once or twice a week to local shop 150 yards drives and supermarker 3 miles away, drove 350 miles last 12 months. Problems with getting in and out of car, at supermarket leans on trolley, staff help her by carrying shopping to car, neighbours unload for her etc.

Very very unsteady on feet, has stumbled numerous times, but not fallen so far, if she fell i think and she definitely asserts she wouldn't be able to get up without help.

Medical evidence suggests both hips are crumbling, so the consequences of a fall appear to be potentially grim (apparently 20% of women of her age group die within the first 12 months of a serious fall/breaking hip).

Her life consists of being virtually housebound, and despite her stocism she struggles with everything.Both DM's and Tribunals around here appear fixated on history of falls, as already mentioned she hasn't fallen, but nevertheless she appears very vulnerable to falling, and the fact she hasn't appears due to good fortune and going outdoors on a very limited basis.

Anyone got any thoughts, ideas or observations?

andy

It's this risk business again. If there is a genuine risk that she will fall, then there seems to be a high risk of very serious harm to her. So as long as the risk of falling isn't fanciful, you are looking at the outcome and its severity. They get the seriousness bit all over the place.

Thanks for the response Ariadne, this is a case which was heard at a tribunal last week, and despite what we put in the sub mirroring what you've said, they seemed incapable of looking beyond a history of falls, and taking on board this is a woman who has been very lucky (had a few close shaves)and is virtually housebound, and spents virtually all her waking moments in her armchair. We are awaiting a statement of reasons/record of proceedings.

The other point about this hearing, was that moi the rep was not acknowledged at any point in the hearing from start to finish, let alone given an opportunity to represent our client, it felt really surreal i've never experienced this before. The same applied to the other hearing that day he won his AA case.


see ya andy

Hi Andy

If a rep is absolutely prevented from speaking at a tribunal (obviously to put legitimate points) then this, in my view, amounts to a breach of natural justice at common law and is also in breach of article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998(right to a fair hearing).

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul,

When i originally posted the message, i didn't dare mention the above because i was afraid that it would detract from the original posting, and (as far as the original posting is concerned)part of me wondered if iwas chasing my own advocates tail but the other half of me knew i wasn't, i just needed reassurance from learned welfs.

But going back to your point,it was truly surreal, i walked in with the client and her mate, and said hello, no reaction or eye contact, during the intro again nothing. During the hearing made notes of hearing, had a small list of questions and points i wanted to ask client, and make to the tribunal, after they had finished cross examining client. Again nothing (no words or eye contact) and they asked client and friend to go back to waiting room, and they would be called in to receive decision.

By this point i was weighting whether i should ask to be allowed to speak, and rightly or wrongly decided tactically not to, on the basis of what had already occurred and the quality of the cross examining.I already prior to the hearing spoken to the client about errr some of the vagaries we can encounter, client very feisty and prepared to challenge stuff.

As well as this obvious (biggy) error of law, there will be others!

Any other observations?

andy