New ESA50!

rogerblack

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Okay, but in the real world, in the meantime, lots of ordinary people, who don't understand these things, are going to drop through the ever increasing holes in the net

Well of course!
That's the whole point!

Cpt.Scarlet

rogerblack wrote: »

I guess I'm 'fortunate' to have a condition (CFS) which according to the DWP and other guidance has both mental and physical components.

Are you sure about that? I'm not aware of any specific guidance for ESA that states this, and for the purposes of DLA is classified as a physical illness.

rogerblack

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'm not aware of any specific guidance for ESA that states this, and for the purposes of DLA is classified as a physical illness.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/medical-conditions/a-z-of-medical-conditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/physical-illness-cfs.shtml
"The reality is that the disability of CFS/ME involves both physical and mental incapacity and it is important to ensure full consideration is given to all the disabling effects of the illness and an accurate assessment of care and mobility needs is made.”"

I vaguely remember that this is the result of caselaw.

It is a 'physical' illness in respect of the mobility component of DLA.
You can also get DLA care for the mental components. (As I do) ( LRC)

JS477

So side effects of any medications have been taken out of the equation!

Wow a new low for Irritable Duncan-Smith.

rogerblack

JS477 wrote: »

So side effects of any medications have been taken out of the equation!

If, and only if they cross the divide between mental and physical.
For example, antidepressants that affect concentration would count.

skintmacflint

rogerblack wrote: »

.

For example, someone with poorly controlled blood sugar may undergo blackouts.
As this is not due to a mental disorder, they would not score points.

.

Loss of consciousness was previously in the physical health descriptor section. Has this descriptor been moved so it is only relevant to people with mental health problems. Can't see it in the document .

In the example given the reason why Tom loses Support Group for incontinence due to epilepsy is because you now have to be conscious while being incontinent. No other reason than that.

JS477

rogerblack wrote: »

If, and only if they cross the divide between mental and physical.
For example, antidepressants that affect concentration would count.

So would painkillers that cause drowsiness count as a physical effect ?

Many painkillers carry warnings not to drive or operate machinery.

zzzLazyDaisy

JS477 wrote: »

So would painkillers that cause drowsiness count as a physical effect ?

Many painkillers carry warnings not to drive or operate machinery.

Confusion and short term memory loss would not count, but drowsiness is a physical symptom, so on that basis this should count.

Disclaimer: the above comments are based on common sense, which may not apply to ESA decisions.

zzzLazyDaisy

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Example
(old rules)
Tom was diagnosed with epilepsy, and had to give up his job as he was unable to drive. Tom’s epilepsy is poorly controlled, and he has seizures three or four times a week. At least once a week, he suffers from urinary incontinence during a seizure, and needs to change his clothes afterwards. Tom scores 15 points each for continence and loss of consciousness descriptors, and has limited capabilty for work (WRAG)
PLUS He also satisfies the continence descriptor for limited capability for work related activities. Tom is placed in the support group.

(New rules)
Three months later Tom is referred for a further WCA to see if his condition has changed. When assessing LCW and LCWRA, any incontinence during a seizure is disregarded.

So now, he is placed in the WRAG group, because his weekly involuntary incontinence is no longer counted - because loss of conscious is 'mental' and you can't score points for a physical symptom arising out of a mental descriptor. So now he no longer meets the criteria for support group.

I had a horrible thought last night. I hope someone will show me that I am wrong, because I don't think I am....

In the above example, what difference would it make if 'Tom' is always doubly incontinent when he has a seizure. That is to say, three or four times a week, he has fits where he loses consciousness, and while he is in that state, he wets and messes himself needing a change of clothing.

Are we saying that, under the new rules, this person is fit to undertake work related activities?

halight

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I had a horrible thought last night. I hope someone will show me that I am wrong, because I don't think I am....

In the above example, what difference would it make if 'Tom' is always doubly incontinent when he has a seizure. That is to say, three or four times a week, he has fits where he loses consciousness, and while he is in that state, he wets and messes himself needing a change of clothing.

Are we saying that, under the new rules, this person is fit to undertake work related activities?

It seems that way,

I wounder if Tesco or any other super market would like to give him a Job,
Would he be able to get cover under there insurance ?