Child with epilepsy - DLA case going to tribunal

All advice appreciated.

We have a case with a 3 year old where DWP are insistent there is no ongoing risk to the child as ‘all 3 year olds’ require significant supervision despite the fact he has a diagnosis of epilepsy, is on treatment and still having ‘absences’.

Paediatrician confirms the need for child to be ‘closely supervised’.

Thought anyone?

Oh dear, not this one again.  The DWP still haven’t got to grips with this yet and it’s been over 20 years.  The needs are those which are substantially in excess of the child of the same age without disability.  To put it simply, you subtract one from the other and if what’s left fits the statutory criteria then Bob’s your uncle.  If not, then hey ho.

According to DWP guidance on child development, “In a safe situation a baby can play on its own” at 6 - 8 months.
See http://dwp.gov.uk/docs/children.pdf
Not directly applicable, but a useful reference.

So if ” all 3 year olds require constant supervision ” then why bother with the regs in the first place regarding DLA for children. Mobility - fair enough (hence the age cap for mobility for children) but care is a different kettle of fish. I am sick of the DWP decision makers ignoring their own direction

Hi,

There are several Upper Tribunal/Commissioner’s decisions about this, lead case is prob R(DLA)1/05 which sets out correct procedure when comparing the child claiming DLA with a child of the same age with ‘normal requirements’ -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1557

see also CDLA/3525/2004 which looks at care needs of a baby a few weeks old -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1690

As everyone else has said, the law on this could not be clearer!

cheers Ros

Thanks all…

Tribunal held, mother gave compelling evidence….....raised argument insisting care needs were substantially in excess etc etc and Tribunal refused appeal….......

They stated they felt mother’s anxiety was the causation of the ‘additional care’ and DLA not awarded on that basis…..

Suffice to say WSOR will be requested and Set Aside asked for but is anyone else finding the Tribunals are appearing to be very harsh in their approach to similar cases??

From what you have said in your last post it sounds as though the tribunal might have missed the point, as epilepsy would normally give rise to additional supervision more so than care needs.  So therefore they should have focused more on the frequency and duration of the abscences and any dangerous or potentially dangerous situations which have arisen during one.  Good luck!

I would be interested to learn of the outcome of this case.

Our client is the parent of a 4 year year old child with idiopathic generalised epilepsy.  The child had 5 epileptic seizures in the 7 months preceding the date of claim of DLA.  Claim was refused on the ground that the child does not have supervision needs substantially in excess of any other child of the same age.

Mother gave an account of providing permanent supervision of her child who sleeps in the parental bed.  Mother claims not to go to sleep and catnapping when the child is at school (reception class).  Child is not permitted to play in the garden unsupervised.

Mother has been warned by a consultant about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and is, understandably, worried sick.