HRM - Pain Management treatment programme obviating the need but now relapse after lost mobility car

Hi all, just putting this one out there for the masses!! 

Got a case just now where the claimant had an award of HRM for several years.  He has been following a pain management treatment plan over the past 4 years and noted that there was a particular improvement in the 12 months prior to renewal.  He uses a TENS machine at home, carries out various exercises and needs to attend the local swimming pool at least 3 times a week for water based therapy.  He does all this on his own now as he has learned the required techniques.  However, he lost his award on renewal after an EMP visit.

He had since lost his mobility car and states he cannot maintain this programme now without his car as it is 2 buses to the swimming pool and another 2 back.  His condition has now quickly deteriorated which has been confirmed by his GP.

With this GP letter he could make a new claim for HRM but he has also appealed the renewal decision.  My impression is that he had improved functionality when religiously following this long term programme and therefore was probably not ‘virtually unable to walk’ but this was obviously dependent on the programme. 

Does he have any case to take forward or would it just be a new claim.  I looked at R(A)3/90 with regards to obviating the need and what is ‘reasonable’ but think it’s a bit of a stretch!

thoughts??

Cheers
Johnny

To be classed as virtually unable to walk has many sides to it.

One argument (could maybe?) be based upon the risk to the health of the claimant by being classed as being able to walk. If your health is at risk, such as you can physically walk but doing so would be considered a risk then some clients get HRM for that.

It can be demonstrated that the removal of HRM is now causing serious deterioration.

I know im stretching it a bit but it may be worth a try!

Maybe some kind Rightsnetter could find some regs to back this up perhaps?

thanks for the response.  Yeah that might be another option.  R(M)1/98 would support that although, again, it might be pretty tenuous.

Cheers

Not sure if relevant to your case, but regulation 11 of the Social Security (DLA) Regulations would enable him to re-qualify on the new claim without another three month qualifying period

Hi Brian

would R(A)2/74 help?

again a bit tenuous