Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)3/95
File Number:	CDLA 192 1994
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Dr D. G. Rice
Date Of Decision:	10/04/1995
Date Added:	27/06/2002
Main Category:	DLA, MA: mobility
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Mobility component - blind and deaf - whether assessment to be made by reference to criteria for disablement benefit The claimant appealed against the refusal inter alia to award him the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance under section 73(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The issue was the meaning of blind and deaf in section 73(2)(a) and in regulation 12(2) of the Disability Living Allowance Regulations 1992. Held that: 1. there is no definition of blind or deaf is the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 or the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. However, in relation to industrial injuries benefit there is a description of what constitutes 100 per cent disablement where loss of sight is involved in Schedule 2 of the Social Security (General Benefit) Regulations 1982 (item 4). Similarly, for cases of occupational deafness there is machinery for assessing deafness in paragraph 34 of, and Schedule 3 to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985; 2. as regulation 12(2) of the 1991 Regulations was concerned with the degree of disablement resulting from blindness or deafness, the criteria in the 1982 and 1985 Regulations were to be applied in deciding whether a person was blind or deaf to ensure the consistent application of regulation 12(2).
Decision(s) to Download:	DLA3_95.doc