"virtually unable to walk" DLA purposes

Zziggi

Could anyone point me in the right direction as to where I would find an official DWP definition of "unable or virtually unable to walk" for DLA purposes please.

I am trying to challenge a decision to lower my OH's DLA from HRM to LRM. Despite him getting HRM for just over 15 years (and therefore it being accepted he is virtually unable to walk) on renewal they have suddenly decided he no longer fits the criteria despite absolutely no improvement in his condition.

Any pointers to legal definitions or definitions used in caselaw would be gratefully received.

Penny-Pincher!!

Zziggi wrote: »

Could anyone point me in the right direction as to where I would find an official DWP definition of "unable or virtually unable to walk" for DLA purposes please.

I am trying to challenge a decision to lower my OH's DLA from HRM to LRM. Despite him getting HRM for just over 15 years (and therefore it being accepted he is virtually unable to walk) on renewal they have suddenly decided he no longer fits the criteria despite absolutely no improvement in his condition.

Any pointers to legal definitions or definitions used in caselaw would be gratefully received.

Hi Zziggi.

I just googled and found this:
http://www.benefitsnow.co.uk/dmakers/virtuallyunable.asp

Hope it helps

PP
XX

happybucket

Sorry you are having problems Zziggi, seems crazy they can suddenly decide he can manage

Thank you for the interesting link Penny Pincher, but I found it very confusing, this example for instance....

Ahmed suffered serious multiple injuries in a road traffic accident. As a result Ahmed's foot is extremely painful and stiff and he is in severe discomfort all the time. The severe discomfort does not increase on walking but the nature of the pain alters. Ahmed suffers from a physical disablement which affects the physical act of walking and causes him severe discomfort even when not walking. Any walking Ahmed accomplishes despite the severe discomfort has to be discounted.

What does it mean, in plain english please? (not specifically asking you Penny Pincher lol but hey if you know the answer!!!)

Horseunderwater

Your OH needs to satisfy the DWP that he cannot walk with or without a stick or other mobility aide on his own for less than 50 meters and you need to describe that in the appeal form in the same way that DWP use when they ask the question. Get his GP involved as well. That will help.
For myself when I did my application back in Feb this year - I put that I have severe problems walking more than 6-8 meters with a stick (which I do) due to severe swollen lower limbs and feet, which cause me quite a bit of pain so stopping me from walking more than that distance without stopping to pause and get over the pain. But I worded it using their questions wording back at them. I also drag my left foot and cannot climb stairs as I cannot bend my ankles or toe joints. It is mostly due to the medication that I take for 2 major medical illnesses. One of which is incurable, so like your OH I will not get better, but it is hoped that treatment may in time help me manage better. But at the moment it has not. Hence my HRM award for DLA. Mind you it will be fun when PIP comes along and I pop in the renewal and change over in 2015 or so unless it happens prior to that. Those descriptors seem to change almost by the day. I also get LRC due to problems with preparing a main meal - my daughter often has to do it as I have little strength in my arms now. I would dearly love to go back to just having diabetes II - but I am now stuck with Myasthenia Gravis as well.

mazza111

If you are going to appeal this decision, it's also wise to get the local Welfare Rights Officer involved. There is a much higher success rate with them on board, whether it be for ESA or DLA.

I bring this up because a lot of people don't know about them, I certainly didn't until someone close had to go to tribunal.

rogerblack

happybucket wrote: »

Sorry you are having problems Zziggi, seems crazy they can suddenly decide he can manage
There is no decision he can now manage. They do not take into account the prior award. Any new award is fresh.
Thank you for the interesting link Penny Pincher, but I found it very confusing, this example for instance....

I would suggest reading (I know it's a slog) http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch61.pdf - this is the full decision makers guide they actually use. (or should.)
Specifically see the very useful table at 61331 in the above.

The actual parts relating to virtual inability to walk are only 12 pages or so.
You will need to read them several times to get your head around them.
Start at 61276
Ahmed suffered serious multiple injuries in a road traffic accident. As a result Ahmed's foot is extremely painful and stiff and he is in severe discomfort all the time.

He would not normally qualify for DLA if some aspect of the severe discomfort is not due to his walking.
The severe discomfort does not increase on walking but the nature of the pain alters.
in this case, it does, so he qualifies - see the table - 'what is the walking ability without severe discomfort'
Ahmed suffers from a physical disablement which affects the physical act of walking and causes him severe discomfort even when not walking.
To claim DLA HRM, your inability to walk has to be due to a physical cause. Note for example a mental disorder which has a physical cause may count. Any walking Ahmed accomplishes despite the severe discomfort has to be discounted.

What does it mean, in plain english please? (not specifically asking you Penny Pincher lol but hey if you know the answer!!!)

Because any walking he can do is held to be _with_ severe discomfort, his walking ability cannot be counted, and he is entitled to high-rate-mobility.

DLA was brought in some time ago, and the courts have made numerous rulings about the meaning of the legislation.

These add to the law, and the DWP must generally comply.
For example 'Denise suffers Porphryia a condition that causes the skin to blister when exposed to
sunlight. Although able to walk any exposure to sunlight triggered her condition.
Denise’s discomfort would not render her virtually unable to walk as it was being out
of doors that caused the discomfort and it did not arise from the act of walking
itself
1
.
1 R(DLA) 6/99'

This refers to the case at http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=322

Penny-Pincher!!

happybucket wrote: »

What does it mean, in plain english please? (not specifically asking you Penny Pincher lol but hey if you know the answer!!!)

I havent a clue...I just googled and found it.

Richie-from-the-Boro

rogerblack,

Activity of walking & standing from a 1T in Darlo should be applied / scope / Details of activities of daily living / Observed behaviour / Clinical examination / to the different descriptors and read in conjunction with the T&D WCA handbook issue v5 final of 5th July 2012

rogerblack

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

rogerblack,

Activity of walking & standing from a 1T in Darlo should be applied / scope / Details of activities of daily living / Observed behaviour / Clinical examination / to the different descriptors and read in conjunction with the T&D WCA handbook issue v5 final of 5th July 2012

Isn't this of limited relevance to DLA?
The statutory tests are somewhat different.

zaksmum

happybucket wrote: »

Sorry you are having problems Zziggi, seems crazy they can suddenly decide he can manage

Thank you for the interesting link Penny Pincher, but I found it very confusing, this example for instance....

Ahmed suffered serious multiple injuries in a road traffic accident. As a result Ahmed's foot is extremely painful and stiff and he is in severe discomfort all the time. The severe discomfort does not increase on walking but the nature of the pain alters. Ahmed suffers from a physical disablement which affects the physical act of walking and causes him severe discomfort even when not walking. Any walking Ahmed accomplishes despite the severe discomfort has to be discounted.

What does it mean, in plain english please? (not specifically asking you Penny Pincher lol but hey if you know the answer!!!)

It means that any walking that can only be undertaken with severe discomfort must be disregarded for the purpose of the benefit entitlement.

So if somebody CAN walk but only with severe discomfort, that walking is disregarded and the person considered to be unable or virtually unable to walk.