Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)10/02
File Number:	CDLA 3908 2000
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mrs L.T. Parker
Date Of Decision:	06/09/2001
Date Added:	27/03/2002
Main Category:	DLA, AA: personal care
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Disablement - care component - whether there must be a free-standing finding of severe disablement Care component - meaning of "continual supervision" Care component - refusal of medical treatment - whether care needs reasonably required The claimant had been in receipt of the highest rate care component and lower rate mobility component of disability living allowance. On renewal, the award of the care component was reduced to the lowest rate for attention during the day. That decision was reviewed but not revised by the adjudication officer. An appeal tribunal upheld the adjudication officer's decision. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner on a number of grounds which were considered at an oral hearing. The appeal was supported by the Secretary of State. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the decision under appeal was an "any ground" review under section 30(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and although it fell to be treated, under transitional provisions, as a decision of the Secretary of State under section 8(1)(a) or (c) of the Social Security Act 1998, the tribunal's jurisdiction was to consider the merits of that decision and, if necessary, correct it, having regard to the powers available to the adjudication officer when he made it; 2. there is no free-standing need for severe disablement in section 72 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. There has to be a physical or mental disablement which meets the statutory criteria. The severity of the disablement is determined by the care needs which arise and not by reference to the general nature of the disablement; 3. the tribunal had erred by construing the words "continual supervision" in section 72 as equating to "uninterrupted supervision". "Continuous" meant "uninterrupted" whereas the proper meaning of "continual" was "frequently recurring"; 4. care needs must be reasonably required and, in certain circumstances, an unreasonable refusal of help from medical services which could eliminate or reduce the care needs, could result in these needs not being "reasonably required".
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA)1002ws.doc