Statement of reasons

fluke13

Had my "statement of reasons" back from the court concerning my PIP claim. Just a quick question one of the statements in it says "She has had lung function tests carried out and has been told that she has full pulmonary function but has severe COPD"
Can you have "full pulmonary function" and have severe COPD?
Maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

NYM

I don't understand it but if it were me, I'd speak to a medical professional

Mersey_2

I suppose technically - to be alive - you require full pulmonary function, but, yes the wording is clumsy. The C doesn't stand for chronic for nothing.

merlin68

No you cant. I have mod to severe copd and my lung function was between 48 and 52 %.
So there is no way you could have full lung function and severe copd.

w06

It reads as a mistranslation of a medical report, 'full pulmonary function studies' or similar ( ie the tests) showing severe COPD

poppy10_2

You can't have sever COPD and full pulmonary function.
W06's explanation sounds right. Get them to check it.

fluke13

Who would I get to check it?
unless its classed as an error in how they applied the law to the case I can't appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tolly_T

Just a quick question one of the statements in it says "She has had lung function tests carried out and has been told that she has full pulmonary function but has severe COPD"

This reads to me as if they are stating as a fact that you had lung function tests but then they state what you say you were told about the results. Did they have a medical report showing the results of these tests or a letter from your doctor confirming your diagnosis of COPD? I'd have thought they should have investigated this a bit further. If it's not possible to have the two together then without further investigation they have different ways to interpret this statement

1. you have full pulmonary function and are mistaken saying that you have severe COPD
2. you have severe COPD and are mistaken saying that you have full pulmonary function

If they believed 1 to be true they may well think you were exaggerating your stated difficulties whereas if they believed 2 to be true they would have been more likely accept your stated difficulties.

As others have said it's worth getting a medical opinion on this and if, as it seems, this doesn't make sense then take it further. I'm not sure of the criteria to go to an upper tribunal - I know it has to be on a point of law. Maybe part of a statement of reasons not making sense medically might fit the criteria.

fluke13

They had my CT scans/ Full pulmonary function tests, diagnosis from a specialist of Emphysema and severe COPD etc. In all of the paperwork that I submitted it did not say I have full pulmonary function, in fact my coefficient ratio is a third of what a healthy persons would be.

HB58

fluke13 wrote: »

They had my CT scans/ Full pulmonary function tests,

and it could be this wording that has caused the confusion if the panel have linked the word 'full' with your pulmonary function rather than with the tests!