Blind and HRM. Supersession?

Thanks albanRNIB.

Another one for you. Another claimant has been referred to be. RP sufferer (along with his siblings), extremely restricted field of vision, and very little useful vision in ‘day to day’ lighting conditions. However his acuity when measured in a well lit clinical setting is better than the threshold 6/60. He has been refused HR mobility.

His sister with the same condition and and acuity also apparently above the threshold, has been awarded HR mobility. He has sought some advice (possibly from a colleague of yours at Redhill) who has suggested that there are grounds of appeal on the basis that ‘real-life’ acuity is far worse than that measured in a clinical setting. I don’t think this will wash given the specific nature of the regulations, unless I’m missing a trick. I would not consider citing his sisters case in an appeal situation.

Any thoughts?

alban RNIB - 17 November 2011 04:32 PM

OK—with that case, PDCS will only find out by writing to the person’s consultant ophthalmologist and asking the specific questions -
- do they have a complete loss of peripheral field?
- is their angle of central vision 10degrees or less

This case is proving to be quite interesting/frustrating. We are one adjournment in as the Judge felt the medical evidence required clarification. The Ophthamologist will not confirm in writing that the appellant has a complete loss of peripheral visual field, only that there is significant primary loss of peripheral visual field along with central field loss with a total remaining visual field of less than 10degrees (in his one good eye - he is totally blind in the other).

I’ve seen some printouts of the single field analysis which to my laymans eye suggest that there are 3 distinct residual patches of visual field remaining all of which are on the border of central/peripheral vision, which explains the Ophthamologist’s reticence.

I would imagine that having tiny patches of residual vision scattered over the visual field is more disabling than the ‘tunnel’ vision the DLA criteria seems to be aimed at. However it appears that on the face of it he doesn’t meet the requirements of the statute.

Any thoughts are welcome!

Any thoughts are welcome![/quote]

My only thoughts are that as well as being welfare benefit advisers we now need a pigging medical degree as well!

I have an appeal in two weeks where the report from the opthomologist is dated 1989 used by DLA.  The man states his sight has now worsened.  I contacted GP who wrongly told me to send him to opticians for sight test which he did.  The optician’s report is nothing like the 3/60 vision etc.  I sent him to his GP to try and arrange another test but have been told this could take months.  The optician states Right eye-Vision is HM with SPh of -0.50 VA HM
Left eye HM SPh -050 CYl +0.50 and Axis 10.0.  He goes onto say that his vision appears at best to be hand movements in both eyes meaninful assessment of filelds difficult but would appear to be constricted in both eyes
Does anyone know what this means?  Would it be possible to get a Opthamologist report through Legal Aid?

Thank you that was so helpful

Good news he won his appeal thanks to you