Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Personal independence payment & other disability related benefits  →  Thread

CDLA 3582/2014

 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior Welfare Rights Officer (Take-Up), Salford WRS.

Send message

Total Posts: 1464

Joined: 17 June 2010

A really interesting decision and worth reading just for the historical perspectives on a number of VI related matters such as registration. Fascinating from my perspective albeit that it will become less relevant as we move towards full on PIP. Amused to read a positive decision from Commissioner Rice being cited too. A rare thing.

A big positive in the sense of work here being defined as an occupation rather than a series of tasks. If only that were the case elsewhere. Also entirely unsurprising that registration should not of itself prove anything, although that’s a potentially a double edged sword. Equally, the definition of blind for deaf/blind is now clarified.

A bit disappointing Judge Perez thought VA and VF are criteria which are established in the ophthalmology field re: severe sight impairment. They certainly get used routinely so they’re “established” in that sense but it’s increasingly recognised that VA is an inadequate, unreliable measure of anything when it’s done indoors as a snapshot in perfect light. Equally if you can find two opths who agree a definition of visual field then good luck to you. There’s a scale between there being no vision at specific locations in the visual field and there being vision but not useful vision. The tests on this are equally unreliable. I’m sure many people will have the Boots version of the VF test where you identify dots which appear and disappear. A dot is light. Being able to see a dot of light in a dark room doesn’t mean you’ll be able to in daylight and nor does it mean it will have focus or be identifiable as a dot of light. What then is your VF? Yet to be determined. Will depend on who you speak to.

Thought I was seeing things when I read in the Rightsnet summary that Judge Wright thought visual field was part of a Snellen test but there it is at para 57. Let’s be generous and assume a slip of the pen and some lax proof reading. Snellen has nowt to do with visual field.

I’m equally intrigued as to what medical tests there might be now which could give a more comprehensive analysis as to whether there is work for which eyesight is essential. Anybody any idea? 

Amusingly the world of VI testing is moving slowly but steadily away from VI and VA and towards… functional testing of exactly the variety we object to for PIP and ESA. Sad to say there are some strong arguments that it is a better measure of VI.

     
Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 1473

Joined: 14 March 2014

CDLA/3582/2014

     
Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior Welfare Rights Officer (Take-Up), Salford WRS.

Send message

Total Posts: 1464

Joined: 17 June 2010

Thanks Daphne. That was a rather obvious omission.