Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Fridge/Freezer packed up.

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    The PIP (and LCWRA) descriptors do not cover unconciousness, only the LCW descriptors cover unconciousness

    So the only way to qualify for PIP on grounds of unconciousness is on not being able to manage daily activities 'safely'.
    For LCWRA it's higher at 'substantial risk of harm'.

    However with my particular Hypersomnia condition you do not suddenly fall unconcious so there is no such risk.
    I can fall unconcious suddenly from epilepsy, or even the cardiac condition causing very low blood pressure, but not frequently enough for it to be classed as a 'substantial' risk of harm.

    Being honest I do have to agree with that for PIP, I don't need supervision to carry out normal daily activities safely.

    I don't agree with there being no unconcious descriptor for LCWRA, after all if you are unconcious for long/frequent periods then you can't reasonably do work related activities.

    Frequent sudden unconciousness is somewhat covered by 'substantial risk of harm'.
    But the DWP's argument there is that the risk is usually not changed whether you are found FFW, LCW or LCWRA.
    And the way that the special regs are worded it's only if such risk would be reduced by being found LCW/LCWRA that those regs count.
    (The 2 special regs actually say it the other way round; "there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for ...")

    At my last ESA50/WCA I argued the point that when unconcious I fit all of the LCW and LCWRA descriptors, from mobilising to taking nutrition, with the exception of behaving inappropriately to other people.
    So it then becomes a question of how frequent/prolonged the unconciousness is.

    I also argued/noted that if I was unconcious for an extended period (days has happened in the past) then I am at substantial risk of harm through dehydration and lack of nutrition, and from not being able to take my cardiac meds.
    But of course as said above, being found 'not to have LCWRA' would not increase that risk so that particular argument was (legally) irrelevant. I was just making a point (OK maybe with fingers crossed).

    Nothing came of those arguments, as expected, but I'll push the 'fits all descriptors' point harder at my next WCA.
    If they had found me FFW this time I would have pushed it further at tribunal.
    Last edited by nukecad; 03-01-21 at 16:10.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts