I have had success with this argument on more than one occasion but usually where the claimant is not totally abstinent. Each case will turn on its own facts. Alcoholism can be complicated by other secondary problems such as alcoholic neuropathy giving rise to physical mobility problems. I’ve had those kinds of cases. More common, in my experience is where the client has no care needs when sober and has been told that if they continue drinking they will be dead in the short run or their health (usually the liver) will be damaged beyond repair. And they are currently trying, with varying degrees of success, to stay sober.
Alcoholics are very sneaky and ingenious about finding ways to drink and lying to the people around them. They hide bottles in unusual places, put shorts with a mixer in pop bottles, find money from God knows where; selling stuff is just one example. In these kinds of cases I argue simply (or mainly) on supervision grounds, as they need someone to keep an eye on them to try to stop them taking a drink, as the risk of continuous drinking is a serious one. Where the facts fit I’ve always got middle rate care/lower rate mobility. I’ve always had a bit of a doubt about lr mob though as I’m not entirely sure how supervising a dry (or largely dry) alcoholic outdoors, with no other complicating factors, enables them to take advantage of the faculty of walking (with the emphasis on ‘the ability to get around’). But I’m not complaining.
For a thorough discussion of a proper approach to alcohol cases in general see the attachment
