New ESA50!

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, so I think he'd need to consider the R35 exemption which, from memory, goes something like - if being found fit for work related activities would put the health and safety of yourself or others at risk.

<goes off to find out if this has changed>

EDIT: ESA R35

(2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if—
(a)the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and
(b)by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity.

Just checked - R35 is unchanged, so in the example above, presumably he would need to obtain a medical report saying that in the GP/consultant's opinion, finding Tom fit for work related activity would be likely to pose a substantial risk to his health or to the health of other people?

Note: on a separate but related issue, R29 has been changed to say that if the risk can be addressed by making adjustments in the workplace OR by the claimant taking medication by their GP to manage their condition, then they will be found fit for work (which is okay as far as it goes, but are we going to get into the issue of 'virtual adjustments')?

rogerblack

skintmacflint wrote: »

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 .

Apologies - I misremembered that conciousness was in the mental section - the above is not an issue.
It has not been moved.

zzzLazyDaisy

rogerblack wrote: »

Apologies - I misremembered that conciousness was in the mental section - the above is not an issue.
It has not been moved.

But surely it is an issue?

Epilepsy isn't a mental health condition - so presumably it is a physical condition?

But yet the continence problems are disregarded because they are physical effects of the loss of consciousness (which appears to be being assessed as a mental condition?).

Sorry if I am being dense, but that is what the DWP guidance seems to be saying.

JS477

I suppose a very small plus in this version's favour is that at the beginning of the Physical Descriptors it does state:-

To answer Yes to any of the following questions, you must be able to do the activity safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time.

Unlike the previous version which did not state this

So I presume if your mobility is e.g. restricted up to 50m then afterwards you have to stop due to whatever problems you have then you don't tick the 50m box because you cannot do it as per the criteria above? You use the large box underneath to explain why you cannot move this distance.

Has anyone noticed that many of the many of the tick boxes in particular the Yes/No ones aren't there even though they should be!!

Also why do scroll bars appear on the right hand side of the extra info boxes, it isn't that it prints out everything you write in them!!

Maybe this is a beta version and needs some more work!

schrodie

Using that same argument then if you cannot go up and down 2 steps safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time then you cannot carry out that activity!


The old IB50 test was a flight of 12 steps so in a way this could be the same but in multiples of 2!

rogerblack

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

But surely it is an issue?

Epilepsy isn't a mental health condition - so presumably it is a physical condition?

But yet the continence problems are disregarded because they are physical effects of the loss of consciousness (which appears to be being assessed as a mental condition?).

Not quite.
Epilepsy is being dealt with as a physical condition.

The descriptor however now says 'Absence or loss of control whilst conscious leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or bladder,"

If you're having most types of epileptic fit, you are not concious.
HOWEVER!
Not all types of seizure cause the person to pass out fully.
If they can be described as 'concious' - even if they are unable to control their body - they would meet this descriptor.

'Toms' case is misleading.
He is entitled to ESA following the changes.
He initially got 30 points - because his incontinence counted.
He now gets 15 points, becasuse only his loss of consciousness counts.

zzzLazyDaisy

rogerblack wrote: »

'Toms' case is misleading.
He is entitled to ESA following the changes.
He initially got 30 points - because his incontinence counted.
He now gets 15 points, becasuse only his loss of consciousness counts.

Thanks for clarifying this.

But the end result is that someone who would have qualified for support group under the old rules, will now have to undertake work related activities, even if during the course of an ordinary working week, they may wet or soil themselves three or four times (albeit while they are unconscious while having a seizure).

BUT, from what you say, someone who is less badly affected in the sense that during the seizure they remain conscious, but still unable to control their bladder and/or bowels, would remain in the support group?

rogerblack

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

BUT, from what you say, someone who is less badly affected in the sense that during the seizure they remain conscious, but still unable to control their bladder and/or bowels, would remain in the support group?

As I understand it, yes.

There have been cases around the similar existing conciousness descriptor which says (paraphrasing) 'Episodes of reduced awareness or concentration while awake' - confirming the fact they don't cover people with sleep aponea, who may fall asleep with little or no notice.

HB58

I don't think that incontinence during a seizure was counted anyway, even before the rules changed. There was a discussion on this site about it some time ago.

rogerblack

HB58 wrote: »

I don't think that incontinence during a seizure was counted anyway, even before the rules changed. There was a discussion on this site about it some time ago.

The DWP guidance differs, and says it was.