New ESA UT decision on activities 19, 20 and 21

hi

i think there may be some useful guidance within the decision as to the interpretation of activities 20(f) and 21(f) and, in particular, how they might relate to a claimant who, as in this case, has ideas that people are talking or laughing about her -

‘16.  The claimant’s representative has pointed out in this appeal that the tribunal has failed to deal with the issue of her ideas such as people talking or laughing at her which she told the tribunal would cause panic attacks. The tribunal found that the attacks were not severe or regular, but made no findings as to the frequency with which the claimant would think, without good reason, that other people were talking about her or laughing at her or the distress this would cause her.

17.  With regard to descriptor 20(f), a disproportionate reaction may be positive or negative. It could be a panic attack, it could be a decision due to depression to withdraw from a situation because of inability to cope with it, it could be a hostile reaction. It appears to me that the tribunal has placed too much emphasis on the question of panic attacks in this respect and has not investigated the question of the claimant’s reaction to minor events and criticism. With regard to descriptor 21(f), the tribunal does not appear to have considered the way in which the claimant misinterpreted the communications of others in relation to herself or the effect this had on her. For this purpose, ‘verbal or non verbal communication’ need not be with the claimant. It is sufficient if it is seen by the claimant and misinterpreted by her.’

cheers ros