ESA, relapsing alcoholism

One has to look at the totality of the evidence.  If, for example, he regularly goes for 6 months without a drink and functions fairly well within that period and then has a month bingeing then he’s not going to score any points.  If, on the other hand there was strong evidence that he resorted to excessive drinking in response to just (what are for him) minor stressful situations then reg 29 could be relevant, particularly if he has existing liver damage.  On the timing of the evidence, it surprises me how this is still an issue.  But, if you think it might be a problem and raise it in a written sub then use a citation.  If you don’t do a written sub then take the decision with you just in case.  On the matter of diagnosis, see below.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/4765/

If you can get his medical records look to check any blood tests; abnormal liver test results should show up. You can google normal ranges if it’s not immediatley obvious but usually it is

If you’re really lucky GP’s monitoring his GammGT so you can follow the progress of any liver damage.

Is he prescribed Thiamine and vitamin B? That would illustrate that GP thinks he’s a regular drinker

Thanks for the replies.

On the timing of the evidence, it surprises me how this is still an issue.  But, if you think it might be a problem and raise it in a written sub then use a citation

I hope it’s not controversial to say that later evidence can cast light on a prior decision, but I don’t have a particular bit of caselaw to back it up. I don’t think I’ve ever argued this point before. From what you say, I assume it’s non-contentious.

Is he prescribed Thiamine and vitamin B? That would illustrate that GP thinks he’s a regular drinker

Was on vitamin B and folic acid at the assessment. GP states (after the date of decision) that claimant *has* oesophageal varices and sclerosis of the liver. I think the difficulty will still be showing the actual risk to health at the time of the assessment.

On the timing of the evidence point there are a few commissioners/UT decisions on this, one fairly recent (and somewhere in briefcase) but I can’t remember the citations.  Perhaps Shawn or Ros can dig one out for you.

Here’s one.  Among other things the UT said “in relation to Dr Ryan’s later letter, it was plainly relevant, despite being written some time after the date of the Secretary of State’s decision, because Dr Ryan expressly took issue with the healthcare professional’s opinion on various issues, presumably well aware of the date of the healthcare professional’s assessment”.

Decision attached

hi -

see also CE/311/2011 which holds that, as set out in R(DLA)2/01 and R(DLA )3/01, evidence coming into existence after the date of decision and evidence of events occurring after the date of decision, may be considered if relevant to the circumstances obtaining at the date of decision.

here’s a link to briefcase summary

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/briefcase/summary/whether-tribunal-should-have-looked-into-reasons-behind-very-low-body-mass-

and decisions themselves -

CE/311/2011 -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3301

R(DLA)2/01 -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=37

and R(DLA )3/01

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=38

cheers ros

Lol.  You wait ages for a UT decision then 4 come along at once.

See also CE/3100/2013 which was published very recently:

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j4065/CE 3100 2013-00.doc

Thanks again!
Here’s a clickable link for CE/1300/2013 (rightsnet can’t handle links containing spaces..)
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4065