Confused about PIP guidelines on mobility

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

Hi folks. Can I put my little bit in this. I used to get the higher mobilising part of DLA until I went to am ESA assessment.
At that assessment the question of mobilising came up and I said that if need be I could walk 100 metres +. I then added that this was only made possible for two main reasons, the pain I have in the upper legs and back is eased considerably because of the heavy doses I take of Opiates every day and don't feel much anymore, and because I have always had a high pain threshold and can stand more pain then most before I have to give up.
They failed me on that and a few weeks later used that assessment to take away both my middle care and high mobility.
So if you take medicine to dull the pain you can walk further. Isn't that what medication is for, to give you a better lifestyle?
I agree with what sunnyone said. No one should have to walk about in pain. Pain can be managed in most if not all cases. It is so easy with the correct drugs and management to have a pain free life. So walking should never be affected by pain and it can't be used as an excuse.Mobilising should be restricted to the physical fact of not being able to put one foot in front of the other.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

You name it I've tried it, in various combinations, by various methods of administration, legal and illegal, licenced and unlicenced.

The strongest I was on did nothing for the pain, but caused many more problems through side effects.

For many many people pain killers don't work, no matter what the strength.

You also have the fact that many GP's are reluctant to issue the stronger opioids for fear of addiction.

There's the other consideration with opioids, Tolerance. The body very quickly becomes tolerant of opioid medications, which can start a spiral of ever increasing doses of these medications, which again causes more and more side effects.

If it was that easy, just take a couple of pills and the pain will go away, I'd still be playing football every week rather than struggling everyday for the last 7 years just to 'put one foot in front of the other'.

How about the other problems that limited mobility or being in constant or significant pain bring about. Things like Depression.

I suppose your advice there is to just 'get over it'.

I suffer from CRPS, a neuropathic pain problem, formerly known as RSD or Neuralgia. It's constant, never goes away, I can feel it when I'm asleep, the pain is proven to be worse than that sufferred in childbirth just to give an idea about how painful it is. Unlike childbirth however, my pain doesn't go away, ever.

kathie1101

satarical wrote: »

...No one should have to walk about in pain. Pain can be managed in most if not all cases. It is so easy with the correct drugs and management to have a pain free life. So walking should never be affected by pain and it can't be used as an excuse.Mobilising should be restricted to the physical fact of not being able to put one foot in front of the other.

Please tell me how to do it then, cos I haven't managed it. my GPs have never managed to make me pain free and neither have surgeons or my pain management team.

dori2o wrote: »

I suffer from CRPS, a neuropathic pain problem, formerly known as RSD or Neuralgia. It's constant, never goes away, I can feel it when I'm asleep, the pain is proven to be worse than that sufferred in childbirth just to give an idea about how painful it is. Unlike childbirth however, my pain doesn't go away, ever.

Dori2o, I too have RSD and people just do not understands how bad it is. To be in agony from the lightest touch, or even just the air movement - well people think you are mad! Never mind all the other problems that go with it or that are caused by meds. I would rather give birth every day than have RSD, and yes I do know what giving birth is like lol :-)

belladonna13

satarical wrote: »

Hi folks. Can I put my little bit in this. I used to get the higher mobilising part of DLA until I went to am ESA assessment.
At that assessment the question of mobilising came up and I said that if need be I could walk 100 metres +. I then added that this was only made possible for two main reasons, the pain I have in the upper legs and back is eased considerably because of the heavy doses I take of Opiates every day and don't feel much anymore, and because I have always had a high pain threshold and can stand more pain then most before I have to give up.
They failed me on that and a few weeks later used that assessment to take away both my middle care and high mobility.
So if you take medicine to dull the pain you can walk further. Isn't that what medication is for, to give you a better lifestyle?
I agree with what sunnyone said. No one should have to walk about in pain. Pain can be managed in most if not all cases. It is so easy with the correct drugs and management to have a pain free life. So walking should never be affected by pain and it can't be used as an excuse.Mobilising should be restricted to the physical fact of not being able to put one foot in front of the other.

Why, if you are now pain free and believe that pain should not be used as an excuse, are you going to be reapplying for DLA?

I read your post in the benefits section and it appears you are appealing ESA also - why? if you are pain free?

You sound like that poster that others call Andy.

Saying you have an high pain threshold and that others are less than you if they do not have and should not be claiming, even though you are, is very strange. How do you know you have a high pain threshold?

I think you are that Andy person and although I did not know you in all your previous AE's, I have read enough off you to make me stand by that belief.

zzzLazyDaisy

Slightly off topic, but just to say that it appears that the timetable for moving people to PIP from DLA with indefinite awards has been put back two years to October 2015 (after the next election), so for those people at least, there will be time to see how the descriptors are applied, in practice.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2173-pip-delayed-for-indefinite-dla-awards?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Benefits%20and%20Work&utm_content=16+Jan+2013

zzzLazyDaisy

satarical wrote: »

They failed me on that and a few weeks later used that assessment to take away both my middle care and high mobility.
.

I must admit I was confused and concerned when I read that taking opiates was used to deny you points for mobility under ESA, and that assessment was, in turn, used to deny you both care and mobility awards of DLA.

I was about to point out to you the areas where these decisions are erroneous, which you could/should appeal, and the points that you should be bringing to the attention of the appeal tribunals, if it should get that far.

But then I read that you agree that this was the right conclusion in your case, and that you support the decision to remove your DLA/ESA.

Which leads me to believe that you are a troll (Andy, or otherwise).

JS477

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but just to say that it appears that the timetable for moving people to PIP from DLA with indefinite awards has been put back two years to October 2015 (after the next election), so for those people at least, there will be time to see how the descriptors are applied, in practice.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2173-pip-delayed-for-indefinite-dla-awards?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Benefits%20and%20Work&utm_content=16+Jan+2013

Not forgetting the review which will hopefully highlight so many problems with the descriptors in particular the mobilising ones that they will have to be looked at again.

Incidentally Motability are keeping very quiet on this (nothing to do of course with the fact that Cameron and Irritable Duncan-Smith are Motability Patrons, there's irony for you!!) and appear to suggest that the [underhand] changes will mean more people will qualify for the enhanced rate of PIP Mobility!

satarical

belladonna13 wrote: »

Why, if you are now pain free and believe that pain should not be used as an excuse, are you going to be reapplying for DLA?

I read your post in the benefits section and it appears you are appealing ESA also - why? if you are pain free?

You sound like that poster that others call Andy.

Saying you have an high pain threshold and that others are less than you if they do not have and should not be claiming, even though you are, is very strange. How do you know you have a high pain threshold?

I think you are that Andy person and although I did not know you in all your previous AE's, I have read enough off you to make me stand by that belief.

Hi Bella. I can't see why you say that? You don't have to be in pain or discomfort to qualify for DLA. Pain is the least of my problems, I am only able to walk a few steps because of physical problems, not mental difficulties or pain. Pain seems to be being used as an excuse that DLA should be awarded. With todays modern science pain can almost in every case be relieved. Mobility should only be considered for those that physically have a problem with movement which in my opinion does not include pain, hence why I am so much in favour of the new PIP descriptors and in total agreement with Sunnyone.
As for the ESA appeal, I am appealing because of physical and mental reasons, none of which include pain.Many times my GP and Consultant have said that they don't know how I am managing to do what I do in life. Like I said to them willpower and drugs get me through it. My GP said that most if not all patients with a medical case as mine would be in bed or complaining of constant pain.
Who is Andy?

satarical

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I must admit I was confused and concerned when I read that taking opiates was used to deny you points for mobility under ESA, and that assessment was, in turn, used to deny you both care and mobility awards of DLA.

I was about to point out to you the areas where these decisions are erroneous, which you could/should appeal, and the points that you should be bringing to the attention of the appeal tribunals, if it should get that far.

But then I read that you agree that this was the right conclusion in your case, and that you support the decision to remove your DLA/ESA.

Which leads me to believe that you are a troll (Andy, or otherwise).

Hi Lazy. Yes they did do that. They said that I don't have any problems mobilising as I admitted to taking medication to get rid of the pain. They ignored it that I have a physical problem being able to put more than a few steps down which has nothing to do with pain. So why mention it as the reason to discount mobilising? I did get a letter from the DLA telling me that because of the ESA failed assessment and in particular failing mobilising, they said I no longer needed DLA. They also took away the care one as well because I failed those tests as well.
No I don't agree that they are right to take me off ESA & DLA at all. They seem to have ignored my physical problems that affect my mobilising. If I was just claiming because of pain I would agree that I shouldn't get either benefit for mobilising as the pain is helped with the drugs and my ability to handle it.
People seem to be confusing what I have said. I believe that pain by itself should not be a reason to give ESA or DLA as you can have two people with the same problem, one takes the drugs and is able to handle pain better and the other doesn't and can't. Why should the one who can cope with the pain not get a benefit over the other? There is nothing fair in that. Pain is in the head, some choose to use it as an excuse, others won't. Each will be finacially better off. It doesn't pay to be brave or take medication then if all you want is an extra £100 a week.
I am not a troll or whatever. If you can help which it seems you can I would appreciate it.

satarical

JS477 wrote: »

Not forgetting the review which will hopefully highlight so many problems with the descriptors in particular the mobilising ones that they will have to be looked at again.

Incidentally Motability are keeping very quiet on this (nothing to do of course with the fact that Cameron and Irritable Duncan-Smith are Motability Patrons, there's irony for you!!) and appear to suggest that the [underhand] changes will mean more people will qualify for the enhanced rate of PIP Mobility!

Hi JS. I don't agree with you. 20 metres is a fair way of checking if someone is able to mobilise or not. 50 metres was way too far. I would say that if you can mobilise the 50 metres wheelchair, stick, crutches, walking etc then you clearly are not unable to mobilise.
As for changing the descriptor after the pilot and review, that would be most unfair on those in the pilot and new claimants that may have failed under the descriptors that now exist whilst others later on are given more distance and a more relaxed test. What starts in the pilot must carry on, you can't just change the goalposts halfway through and tell those in the pilot that it was tough on them that they had to be tested much harsher.

What is motability? Is that the car thing that the disabled get? If so what has it got to do with them?

schrodie

Why not make it 10m then or better still 0m, afterall why allow anyone who can walk any disatnce the right to have PIP!

As for Motability may I suggest you Google 'Motability' then [hopefully] you'll be enlightened!

As for moving the goalposts try telling that to the tories!