Uncontrolled epilepsy and the mobility component

We have had some case law now on safety and unpredictable fits for the Daily Living component, but is there anything about the mobility component where another person is needed for either reassurance or safety.  We have also had some (contradictory) case law where a claimant is so anxious they cannot go out without someone else), but nothing on need for supervision because of conditions like epilepsy.  When PIP training was done, the DWP gave an example of “Pete” who met the descriptor 10E “Needs supervision to follow a journey to a familiar destination”.  But as far as I know, this descriptor 10 E never made it to the regulations, and if we are to interpret Mobility activity 1 in the way Judge Jacobs suggests, I don’t know what descriptor would apply.  Have I missed something?

Ruth

Please could someone link me to the UT decision concerning uncontrolled epilepsy?

I have taken my eye off PIP while dealing with UC.

Many thanks

Hi Sarah - this is the one about epilepsy - CPIP/2287/2015

But if you’re looking at supervision this one is helpful - CPIP/1671/2015

Ruth - I wonder if this second one would be useful to argue 11d or 11f - need another person with them to follow the route safely?

Thank you, our client with uncontrolled epilepsy won today, using the ‘likelihood’ argument for supervision. Enhanced and Enhanced.

Thanks Daphne and Sarah. Will be using this in relation to supervision and mobility.  Ruth