Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)4/04
File Number:	CDLA 2139 2003
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	12/03/2004
Date Added:	23/03/2004
Main Category:	DLA, MA: mobility
Main Subcategory:	virtual inability to walk
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Mobility component - virtual inability to walk - severe discomfort even when not walking no bar to entitlement The claimant had suffered serious multiple injuries in an accident. His remaining disabilities included a painful claw foot. He was refused higher rate of mobility component. An examining medical officer reported that on a good day the claimant would be able to walk 200 yards before the onset of severe discomfort and on a bad day a few yards. He would take 20 minutes to cover both those distances. An appeal tribunal accepted that the claimant had a severe disablement which affected his mobility. However the majority dismissed his appeal on the basis that the level of pain he suffered did not increase when he walked and he therefore did not fall within the terms of regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) requires that walking which cannot be accomplished without severe discomfort is to be disregarded (paragraph 9); 2. although it is only discomfort related to the physical act of walking which is relevant to higher rate mobility component under regulation 12(1)(a)(ii), there is no requirement that such discomfort must first arise or must increase after walking has commenced (R(DLA)6/99 Hewitt v. Chief Adjudication Officer; Diment v. Chief Adjudication Officer CA, considered) (paragraph 7); 3. if the tribunal were satisfied that the claimant suffered from a physical disablement which affected the physical act of walking and which caused the claimant severe discomfort even when not walking, any walking which the claimant was able to accomplish despite the discomfort was to be disregarded (paragraph 10). The Commissioner considered the evidence, made fresh findings of fact and awarded the claimant higher rate mobility component.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA) 4_04 bv.doc