Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)6/05
File Number:	CSDLA 430 2004
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mrs L.T. Parker
Date Of Decision:	27/07/2004
Date Added:	06/08/2004
Main Category:	DLA, MA: mobility
Main Subcategory:	guidance or supervision
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Mobility component - lower rate - entitlement where claimant is impeded in walking because of fear or anxiety The claimant suffered from anxiety and from asthma. He claimed that the asthma prevented him from cooking a main meal and also that chronic anxiety about sustaining an asthma attack meant that he required guidance and supervision to enable him to walk out of doors. The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments about the cooking test, although it did not address a statement from his GP that his anxiety led to problems with concentration and he should not in the GP's opinion be using a cooker or carrying hot pans, but accepted that the claimant's fear of a severe asthma attack caused him to need supervision out of doors. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the tribunal had a duty to assess all the evidence and to reach a reasoned view of which evidence it preferred and to explain the process by which it analysed the evidence when applying the statutory tests; 2. with respect to the cooking test, not only were the claimant's physical abilities relevant but whether, through disablement, he lacked the concentration to carry out the necessary activities on a regular basis; 3. the crux of entitlement to the lower rate mobility component was whether guidance and supervision would overcome the effects of a physical or mental disablement and enable a person to walk out of doors. A complication arose where the guidance and supervision resulted from chronic anxiety about sustaining an asthma attack. 4. regulation 12(7) and (8) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 had been added in 2002 following the decision of a Tribunal of Commissioners in R(DLA) 4/01. The effect of the amendment was to limit the circumstances in which a claim may succeed where the impediment to walking arises because of fear or anxiety; it must for that purpose be established that the claimant's problems are symptoms of a mental disability and are so severe that he cannot take advantage of the faculty of walking out of doors without guidance or supervision (paragraphs 7 and 8); 5. however, in regard to the asthma attacks, the quite different question to be asked was whether the claimant cannot reasonably be expected to venture outside without a companion most of the time because of the level of difficulty caused by an asthma attack (the test for lower rate mobility being distinct from the supervision test for the care component) (paragraph 9); 6. guidance and supervision does not have to be related directly to the act of walking but it must be instrumental in allowing the claimant to go out of doors and exercise that faculty. (For the meaning of supervision, R(DLA) 3/04 cited with approval) (paragraphs 10 and 11).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA) 6_05 bv.doc