Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)4/03
File Number:	CSDLA 667 2002
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mrs L.T. Parker
Date Of Decision:	26/02/2003
Date Added:	12/03/2003
Main Category:	DLA, MA: mobility
Main Subcategory:	virtual inability to walk
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Mobility component - virtual inability to walk - onset of severe discomfort - effect of halts - relationship of pain and severe discomfort The claimant sought, inter alia, an award of higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance. She contended that she was virtually unable to walk in that she satisfied the statutory criteria set out in regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. An appeal tribunal upheld the Secretary of State's decision to refuse her claim. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner citing a number of Commissioners' decisions which were favourable to the appeal. The issues and the relevant authorities were considered at an oral hearing. Held, refusing the appeal, that: 1. although the term "severe discomfort" was a statutory phrase, its application to a claimant's case was a question of fact to be determined by the tribunal having regard to the evidence (paragraph 16); 2. "true pain" did not automatically mean "something more than severe discomfort". There were difficulties in equating the concept of pain with severe discomfort. A tribunal had to decide for itself, having regard to all relevant factors, whether there was severe discomfort (R(DLA) 4/98 followed) (paragraph 17); 3. there was extensive case law on the statutory test set out in regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) from which certain propositions of law could be deduced (paragraph 19); 4. all aspects of a claimant's walking resulting from physical disablement had to be considered and an evaluation of its quality then made (paragraph 21; 5. it was not the law that only walking to the first halt required through severe discomfort is relevant. If the claimant recovered after a period of rest and continued walking without severe discomfort, the statutory test did not preclude such continued walking from being assessed in the light of the evidence (paragraph 22); 6. time, speed, manner and distance of walking achieved without severe discomfort had to be balanced in order to reach an overall judgement on virtual inability to walk (paragraph 23).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA) 4 03 final amended.doc