Bit from RNID.
http://www.rnid.org.uk/information_resources/factsheets/benefits/factsheets_leaflets/challenging_decisions.htm
But Commissioner May ruled: "interpretation by the claimant of what is on the written page is related to the cognitive function of being able to interpret writing rather than the bodily function of hearing" (CSDLA/867/1997 & CSDLA/840/1997). The cognitive function involves the ability to understand something. A number of other commissioners' decisions support the view that cognitive functions are not bodily functions (see CSA/389/1997, CA/22/1993, CSDLA/309/1998 and CDLA/4295/2000).
However, in CDLA/3433/1999, Commissioner Levenson disagreed with May's view that "interpretation of the written word" is related to cognitive functions rather than the bodily function of hearing. Levenson held: "the interpretation of the written word is, in my view related to both and there is no significant difference between this and what happens with interpreting speech".
There is a bit more to it so you may want to look at the whole thing and put into a context that relates to your client.
Hope it helps
|