Chronic V Acute

tokenfield

This was on behalf of someone else.

They had a one off 'Acute' condition which by itself is and was not recognised as being appropriate to claim ESA or indeed DLA/PIP for.

Recovery from that 'Acute' attack lasted approx. 3 months.

However the condition became 'Chronic' which was acceptable for ESA.

I didn't realise how important it was to have any condition or illness determined as being 'Chronic' instead of 'Acute'.

nannytone_2

theres a huge difference between chronic and acute.
acute breathing troubles could arise due to may factors, such as breathing in smone and while scary at the time, passes quickly.

chronic breathing troubles could be due to emphasemia/COPD and can be very fevilitating long term

kaya

in pain terms chronic pain is pain that has lasted for more than 3 months and has no apparent function , acute pain is the one that gets you screaming when it hits

rogerblack

tokenfield wrote: »

This was on behalf of someone else.

They had a one off 'Acute' condition which by itself is and was not recognised as being appropriate to claim ESA or indeed DLA/PIP for.

Misinformation again.
Do you just type random gibberish intermingled with facts?

Anyway.
It is quite possible to claim ESA for short-term illnesses - ones that have no chance of the illness persisting (assuming it follows the normal course) until the 13 week assessment period for ESA is over.

For example, a simple uncomplicated broken leg.

Neither ESA or DLA/PIP are based on a chronic/acute condition - it's your abilities, not your diagnosis that are what matters.

Though for PIP the needs will need to have existed for 3 months, and be likely to persist for 9.

tokenfield

rogerblack wrote: »

Misinformation again.
Do you just type random gibberish intermingled with facts?

Anyway.
It is quite possible to claim ESA for short-term illnesses - ones that have no chance of the illness persisting (assuming it follows the normal course) until the 13 week assessment period for ESA is over.

For example, a simple uncomplicated broken leg.

Neither ESA or DLA/PIP are based on a chronic/acute condition - it's your abilities, not your diagnosis that are what matters.

Though for PIP the needs will need to have existed for 3 months, and be likely to persist for 9.

No it's not gibberish at all.

The person concerned was refused ESA both by the DWP AND the Tribunal simply because they considered that having an 'acute' attack can last for a few seconds or a few months. They decided that it was a 'one off' incident that righted itself and could not be said to be a reason for being awarded ESA.

When his GP/Consultant told him after a few months when it hadn't improved it was now classified as 'Chronic' ie long lasting.

On this basis he obtained an ESA award and eventually was awarded DLA.

I am only repeating what the Tribunal said, as I didn't know what the difference was between the two.

As for the 13th week - that is the time limit by which the DWP have to have had an assessment carried out. It doesn't mean to say that you should be awarded ESA on the strength of an 'Acute' episode that may have lasted a week or two, but you are given 13 weeks at the assessment rate.

rogerblack

tokenfield wrote: »

No it's not gibberish at all.

There is no basis in the regulations for 'acute' or 'chronic' having any special meaning whatsoever.
The tribunal chooses whatever information it believes relevant - and it could consider that if a report describes an attack as 'acute' - then as normal medical terminology - that describes a short duration.
Similarly - chronic is longer.

There is no special meaning to these terms whatsoever in the regulations.

If you have a medical report which you feel may mislead in this manner - ideally get the professional involved - or note that the condition has continued yourself for a specified period.

nannytone_2

surely it depends what it is an acute attach of?
it would still have to meet the ESA descriptors.
if its an acute coughing fit, then clearly ESA is noton the vards

tokenfield

nannytone wrote: »

surely it depends what it is an acute attach of?
it would still have to meet the ESA descriptors.
if its an acute coughing fit, then clearly ESA is noton the vards

It was an acute asthma attack. He was hospitalised for a few days and told that things should improve in the short term. As they didn't and he applied for ESA he had an assessment with ATOS and handed in the discharge report from the hospital.
Both the DWP & the Tribunal decided that there was no valid condition to base an ESA award on.

However he then went back to the GP some 3 months later and was told that in reality he had a chronic asthma condition. He re-applied for ESA and based on a GP's letter he was awarded ESA with no problems. He then went onto claim DLA which was also awarded by virtue of the GP's report.

He can't work out, considering that nothing with his health had changed from when he was hospitalised until 3/4 months later, why an acute attack v a chronic condition should make any difference. He is just a bit confused in his thinking.

nannytone_2

it obviously had changed though.
the asthma attack that led him to be hospitalized was the real start of his issues. as it hadnt happened before, there was no evidence of his condition being debilitating long term.
he was expected to improve even by his own doctor.

so the change was that his condition went from being acute to chronic.

also he obviously didnt have supporting evidence (GP report) eith his initial claim.

so that is 2 changes

tokenfield

nannytone wrote: »

it obviously had changed though.
the asthma attack that led him to be hospitalized was the real start of his issues. as it hadnt happened before, there was no evidence of his condition being debilitating long term.
he was expected to improve even by his own doctor.

so the change was that his condition went from being acute to chronic.

also he obviously didnt have supporting evidence (GP report) eith his initial claim.

so that is 2 changes

Right - so the moral of the case is that no one should really attempt an ESA claim if they have been diagnosed as having an acute episode - only if it is chronic.

Which leads me to the question that I know I will be asked later, when does an acute episode become a chronic condition so that ESA can be claimed.

I have no idea and I don't suppose that the DWP has either.

There must be many that could claim ESA only if the GP/Consultant gave a timely report. People should therefore press their GP for a decision early on - is it an acute episode or a chronic condition.

Brassedoff

tokenfield wrote: »

This was on behalf of someone else.

They had a one off 'Acute' condition which by itself is and was not recognised as being appropriate to claim ESA or indeed DLA/PIP for.

Recovery from that 'Acute' attack lasted approx. 3 months.

However the condition became 'Chronic' which was acceptable for ESA.

I didn't realise how important it was to have any condition or illness determined as being 'Chronic' instead of 'Acute'.

Acute means you will be able to get better. Chronic means you will not get better.