The question raises a difficult issue about the likelihood of an event occurring balanced against the potential danger should it occur. I have a not dissimilar problem with a client suffering from epilepsy since childhood who has recently had his DLA renewal claim refused. Client stated that he had not had a single epileptic fit for a year, but that fits generally occur in bunches, and he has had 3 in the six months since the decision was made.
I don't think that your argument is totally unreasonable, but is probably not sufficient to convince a tribunal. The danger to the claimant must be SUBSTANTIAL, which has been interpreted in R(A)1/73 as 'considerable, solid or big' but need not be life-threatening. Take a look at the commentary to SSCBA 1992 s.72 in Bonner et al. (in the 2007 edition it starts at the bottom of page 148) for Commissioners' Decisions which will support your argument.
|