Tribunal Help ! 

Hi

Can anyone direct me to any case law surrounding partial blindness/blindness ?

I have a client who’s eyesight is normal but she has a condition where her eyelids will not open unless forced by hand.  Treatment options have failed. She has been placed in WRAG we have appealed to get into Support Group. 

We are trying to get a Certificate of Visual Impairment but proving very difficult as vision is classed as normal - mental health is now an issue to to distressing nature of illness.  There are a number of descriptors physical and mental that I am going in on but would like some back up if there is any. 

Tried a search but cant find anything relevant

Thank you for your reply :) 

I have noted your comments, the descriptors you mentioned I am going to argue for and also some mental health descriptors I think apply. 

I am also going to ask for a consideration under exceptional circumstances if the tribunal think they cant award enough points. 

I hope I do the job!

Ooh, lots to go at here.

First of all, the CVI. Most opthalmologists go no further than looking at Snellen even though the regs. are clear that there’s more to a CVI than visual acuity. So, first thing you need is the right opthalmologist who is willing to refer the matter to the clients consultant. The client does have a consultant?

However, the other 2 things to be looked at here will be field of vision and blurring of central vision. My assumption is that neither will theoretically apply. However, I would be arguing on field of vision as, unless eyes forced open, it will effectively be nil. Your call on whether you go for blind or partially-sighted. Either could apply. Bear in mind that you’ll do well to find an opth. who accepts someone with actual vision when eyes open as having a restricted visual field. They are often very black and white about such things. I speak from first hand experience. However, if you can at least persuade them to get it to the consultants then they are more likely to take a pragmatic view. So, persevere. If you can get the consultant treating the condition to agree to register then you’re halfway there. I have had RNIB specifically advise me on this and, sad to say, (and pardon the pun) they too have a focus on visual acuity. Disregard and carry on regardless. Registration is everely underclaimed because of consistent poor advice re: a focus on VA. Does the client know an ECLO (Eye Clinic Liaison Officer)? If so, engage them. Explain the issues and the aim of registration. You will usually find them incredibly supportive.

Also worth saying though that a CVI is just that, a certificate. The client will need to ensure it gets to their GP and local SI team and make a formal request to be assessed and be registered. A CVI itself is not a registration. Many people will say that having a certificate or a registration has no practical impact when it comes to benefits. I would beg to differ from 2 perspectives.

One is that an assessment can be incredibly useful in detailing what someone can and can’t do. The other is that DMs in particular have no grasp of the concepts of visual impairment. When they see “registered” they will only think in terms of visual acuity/distance vision. Sad to say, in this sort of case, that plays in the clients favour. They are almost always deemed to be “worse in some way” because they have a piece of paper.

As an aside, my experience is that most people, including advisers. only think of VI in terms of visual acuity. They tend to see reduced field of vision; colour sensitivity; light sensitivity and issues with movement as minor adjuncts or quirks rather than of equal or greater impact. There is also a huge underestimation of the mental health impact of impaired vision. In terms of sense of self it’s generally reckoned to be second only to brain injury so a focus on mental health may be a battle also but it’s no bad thing.

Now, as far as descriptors go I’m going to say two things:

1) Forget about looking for sight specific stuff.

2) Start looking at practicalities.

Soooo… thinking in terms of repeatedly, reliably and safely etc…. I find it hard to see which SG (sorry Patrick) descriptors would NOT apply. I would guess 2, 3, 8 and 9 are not in play but the rest seem to me to be very much worthy of discussion especially when you get into looking at aids and adaptations.