Higher rate mobility and use of a bicycle for getting around.

My client cant walk 50 yards due to a disability (incomplete paraplegia) He does use a bicycle to get around.

Is he still able to apply for mobility as it is his ability to walk without severe pain that we are claiming for.

The following from R(DLA) 4/03 should give you the answer you’re looking for and is, in my view, the lead case on the matter.

“21. None of the above cases nor those cited in argument directly answer the question before me. However, the statutory wording makes clear that the focus of whether a person is “virtually unable to walk” under regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) is on the limitations imposed by the claimant’s physical condition as a whole on an ability to make progress on foot out of doors. This judgement of fact and degree is, as Mr Commissioner Howell QC said in CDLA/608/1994 (at paragraph 13) “intended to be a broad one”.

22. All the aspects of a claimant’s walking are to be considered which result from physical disablement and an evaluation of its quality is then made. This is on the basis that firstly, walking achieved only with severe discomfort is discounted and secondly, that a tribunal must pay appropriate regard to manner, speed, distance and time. This exercise is carried out with the purpose of determining whether, taken overall, the claimant’s walking out of doors is properly described as “virtually unable to walk”.

23. If a stop is the absolute limit of the claimant’s capacity to walk then no issue of taking the test only to the first onset of severe discomfort arises. But if a claimant recovers after a period of rest and continues walking without severe discomfort, then the statutory test does not preclude such continued walking from being assessed. The tribunal must judge from the evidence such relevant factors as how far the claimant can initially walk without experiencing severe discomfort, how long any severe discomfort lasts before it subsides or, if he has paused to prevent such discomfort then the necessary duration of that pause, how frequently these halts recur if at all, and what is the total distance and time he can walk in this manner without severe discomfort.

24. Time, speed, manner and distance of walking, achieved without severe discomfort, are therefore balanced in order to reach an overall judgement on whether the claimant is virtually unable to walk. If a claimant has to rest an hour between each set of walking before severe discomfort subsides, he or she is more likely to be virtually unable to walk than a claimant who requires only 5 minutes. Conversely, if a claimant with morning stiffness through rheumatoid arthritis walks the first minute out of doors in severe discomfort, stops for 4 minutes in order to flex his limbs and thereafter is enabled to walk 10 miles without severe discomfort at a reasonable pace and speed and without further halts, the statutory criteria do not prevent a conclusion which is in no way perverse, that such a claimant does not fall within regulation 12(1)(a)(ii).

25. All of these are matters for the good sense of tribunals. It is not, however, the law that only walking to a first halt required through severe discomfort is relevant. This adds an unjustifiable gloss to the statutory criteria given the broad purpose of the test under regulation 12(1)(a)(ii), which is to establish the practical limitations on a person’s ability to walk due to the stated factors”.

thanks nevip.

appeal on Monday morning and i don’t have copy of EMP report. Going to tribunal service to get it this afternoon.

A GP once wrote a very helpful letter for me in which she pointed out that ‘cycling requires the use of entirely different joints and muscle groups from and the expenditure of significantly less physical effort than walking, a fact which becomes all too apparent to those of us who fail to loose weight by cycling….”

I discovered while using a gym that to walk a distance uses about twice as much energy as to cycle it, and that was on a resistance machine - though ti takes longer, of course. Modern bikes are highly efficient at transforming energy into speed/distance, thanks to gearing.

A friend who is a physiotherapist and sports scientist suggested that also cycling is (comparatively) non-weight bearing as the body’s mass is distributed through the saddle, handlebars and pedals and power is generated by a low impact circular motion of the feet. It is also less energy intensive than making progress on foot.

I can confirm this as I regularly cycle 30-60 miles at weekends and commute by bike, have no real joint pains and have lost very litt;e weight!! yet walking is murder on my feet ankles and knees!