Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
walking to an acceptable standard
Client has ataxic gait secondary to toxoplasmosis but only scored 4 points on mobility, said to be able to walk 50-200m.
I was intending to argue that he cannot walk to an acceptable standard as per Reg 2 (b) of the PIP Amendment Regs but wonder whether this has any mileage. He can put one foot in front of the other and get from A - B (to a limited extent), he’s just a bit all over the place whilst doing it.
I have other arguments to fall back on (speed, safety, etc.) but am interested in what people think about what constitutes an ‘acceptable standard’ when it comes to walking? Anyone had experience of arguing this at tribunal?
Wouldn’t the safety you mention fall under the umbrella of Acceptable Standard?
AFAIAA the AS is yet to be defined.
I can see where you are coming from John but it is separate in the SI so presumably has a different meaning in the mind of legislators. It’s easy to see how it applies to a descriptor such as dressing & undressing - if someone puts their underpants on their head or their clothes inside out and back to front they are clearly not dressing to an acceptable standard. In terms of walking though I am wondering if describing someone’s walking as ‘not to an acceptable standard’ because they walk differently to a non-disabled person is just judgemental. But I would like to use the argument if it helps the client to win the appeal; it’s something of a paradox in my mind.
Just a quick thought - remember that the descriptors relate to ‘moving’ not ‘walking’. Is it possible that your client might be ‘moving’ to an acceptable standard even if he isn’t really walking in an ordinary sense?
Good point Elliot.
The relevant descriptors say ‘stand and then move’. ‘Stand’ is defined in the main Regs as ‘stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground’. Move is not defined. I suppose one could run, skip, hop or jump rather than walk but it seems unlikely that any of these would be a factor. Perhaps hopping if someone only had one leg?
The Assessment Guide says ‘in order to complete this activity to an acceptable standard the claimant should be able to move the distance in an upright position’, suggesting that someone who is bent over double whilst walking should not be assessed as being able to complete the activity.
Maybe that answers my question.
I can see where you are coming from John but it is separate in the SI so presumably has a different meaning in the mind of legislators. It’s easy to see how it applies to a descriptor such as dressing & undressing - if someone puts their underpants on their head or their clothes inside out and back to front they are clearly not dressing to an acceptable standard. In terms of walking though I am wondering if describing someone’s walking as ‘not to an acceptable standard’ because they walk differently to a non-disabled person is just judgemental. But I would like to use the argument if it helps the client to win the appeal; it’s something of a paradox in my mind.
By my mind safely has to be part of defining the acceptable standard (b.) Probably to include the other elements (a) (c) & (d) under the judgement rather than separately. Possibly in some circumstances if a claimant could do (b) (c) & (d) but not (a) then the test may be satisfied. It’s harder (I think) to imagine the situation that (a) (c) & (d) are satisfied but not (b) which would be significant to lead to an award of points.
The body will compensate passively for some impairments - In some circumstances this can lead to other problems due to the bio-mechanics involved.
Aesthetically pleasing movement would be subjective as the act of moving is a function.
I happen look at people walking everyday - every one achieves the same aim in a slightly different manner. Some people swing their arms around, some are more upright than others, some are restricted by clothing.The only commonality is the upright bipedal nature.
Few people have had training to walk. We learn ourselves without training. Few people move as gracefully, for instance, a dancer .
I suppose the tribunal could judge the aesthetically pleasing movement by way of score cards like the judges on a popular semi-pro televised dance competition?