WCA appeal- fitting descriptors

Have a slightly unusual WCA appeal and would welcome opinions. The client has a chronic gut disorder. Surgery was only partially successful. As a reult of her condition she is nauseous much of the time and frequently vomits. The vomiting is worse after she has eaten but can occur at any time. She has no mental health problems and no physical restrictions in relation to the various descriptors per-say. Bending & kneeling can bring on the nausea so there is a potential for some points there, but that’s about all I can find (there’s no real link between the other activities and the nausea) and I can’t see how I can fit her into Reg 29 (exceptional circs) either-working would be unlikely to result in any substantial risk to her or to others. However, realistically, it is very difficult to imagine her coping with any form of work even if she could find an employer willing to take her on.

Can anyone think of anything? Any suggestions gratefully received..

I think client should get referred for a second medical opinion apart from anything else.

Surely, it cannot be medically OK to be a victim of repeated vomiting over a long period of time. Reg. 29(2)(b) does not actually prescribe a time limit on when the the substantial risk is expected to come into play, but would have thought there would be a deterioration in health over 6 months with uncontrolled vomiting. Or is it more nausea rather than vomiting? Would have thought that could be controlled by medication. Looks like there is a need for a vomiting diary! Could only happen with ESA.

Thanks- she’s been this way for some years and based on what her GP has said, her condition is as controlled as it ever will be. I think you’re right in that a ‘vomiting diary’ is called for. It may reveal a pattern of nausea/vomiting associated with certain tasks & actions. As you say, only with ESA.

‘Only with ESA’ -

I have a rather similar situation, client has epilepsy and has episodes every second day on average. She’s in the WRAG already but was considering an appeal for the Support Group but there are no descriptors at all regarding ‘conciousness’ in Sch 3 which would seem to be completely unrealistic. If she goes ahead with the appeal we would have to rely on Reg 29 (and I doubt that tribunal would have any great difficulty deciding in her favour) but it does highlight the rather strange and unrealistic nature of the ESA in all its different aspects.