Help with submission (DLA mental health/supervision)

MWv Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CSA)
[2013] UKUT 0158 (AAC

Try the above where it was concluded that the EMP evidence was incorrectly weighted at the 1st Tier appeal. It may help your case.

good luck
Peter

I find in these type of cases that support from someone who helps your client on a day to day basis - so someone from the high support accomodation that you mention - far outweighs anything else.

Did the HCP actually see the client or merely offer an opinion based on the papers? Does the HCP have any type of mental health qualification? If they did not see the client then they are offering an opinion based on paperwork which is merely an opinion…if they do not have a mental health qualification it may be worth quoting the ESA decision CE/3883/2012 which addresses this point.

I always check the NMC register. If the Nurse is an adult nurse and not an RMN, I use that in my submission.

‘Nurse from medical services writes that if he needed watching over (i.e. continual supervision) day and night then he would be in hospital under section.’

This seems a circular argument. Can’t receive an award for supervision because he is not in hospital due to being sectioned and then presunably could have an award if he is in hospital that then can’t be paid becauise he is in a hospital.

Focus on key phrases like ‘Substantial Danger’ and the effect of any event if supervision is not provided. Check the foot notes to the relevant regulation for caselaw in the Sweet and Maxwell volumes. Also identify what help your client receives from who and when.

The mental health act requires that a person “warrants detention…  in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons.”

This is a substantially different test than “continual supervision…”. The MHA considers a risk requiring continous supervision (analogous to the warrant of detention) which as we all know is not continual

S73 has borrowed the terms of the MHA in defining “Severe Mental Impairment” with regard the mobility component and had it been the intention of parliament to impose the same level of risk on the supervision requirements at S72 then they would have done so.

Thanks to you all.

Used a lot of these points in my submission (along with statements from supported accomodation and client) and appeal successful (MRC awarded). In fact when we arrived the panel had no further questions!