Is anyone else on the recieving end of serious suggestions about using perching stools in the kitchen as a way of preparing and cooking a main meal by someone who suffers from mobility/stability problems?

Did two tribunals today - in both the disability member was adament that with the use of such stools one could manage to cook a main meal for yourself: notwithstanding the fact that in order to reach the cooker/fridge/sink/preparation surfaces etc you would have to stand up and move the stool....she didn't quite have the answer when it came to opening the door and reaching into the oven, and then taking a pan from the oven to a work surface........

Is it me, is it the air in East Anglia, or has the process of logical thought been discontinued in favour of the ministry of bright ideas..............

don't tell me tribunal members are receiving quality checked training from disability appliance salesmen?

a closer look perhaps, and one of those map thingies with coloured drawing pins? and a pointy stick?

jj

Get this comment often, along with the question about whether a commode can be used in the bedroom at night (alot of our clients' bathrooms are downstairs) Our clients often didn't have clue what the panel were talking about when asked about a perching stool!

Just have to look at the practicalities of whether the client can actually use the thing once you've explained to the client what it is!

I normally now ask the client whether they can use a perching stool when completing the original claim form - long way round i suppose but at least the client has their answers when asked the question at Tribunal, in much the same way as we've already covered how far they can walk without SD.

As far as using one is concerned - totally impractical, unless you have a kitchen the size of a postage stamp.

There generally seems to be a new slant to the questions being posed recently - more along the lines of "If you did it this way, could you manage to do it yourself?" : one or two of them are starting to sound like DM's.

It's almost as if (perish the thought) tribunal members have been receiving some sort of training designed to 'Focus' their minds in a more 'constructive' manner. Occasionally you really have to ask yourself just how independent they see themselves to be, because they certainly don't sound it. We already have problems trying to get them to use past as opposed to present tense when asking questions.

Myself and colleagues have come across one particular tribunal member who asks about "perching stools" at every disability appeal tribunal. Other useful suggestions from the same member include the use of a slotted spoons and carrying the water required for cooking and making a cup of tea to the pan/kettle in a cup. All of which, however, begs the question how does someone do all this whilst perched on a stool?

Those are almost identical to the suggestions which are coming forward far more frequently than they use to be in this area - which is what makes us think there might be an element of training going on somewhere -

what they cannot seem to grasp is that if you are dependent on a crutch or walking stick for support, or just cannot stand for any appreciable length of time, then perching stool or no perching stool, you are at real risk of scalding/burning.

The only thing they haven't come up with (yet) is a stool on castors and some hand rails so you can do the Jason Button bit around the kitchen.............

I have noticed this tendency to ask questions about all manner of kitchen aids. Also at a recent tribunal, the disability member asked whether the claimant could make a meal if all the ingredients, utensils were laid out ready. I'm sure this is not the legal test - thankfully at the appeal I was not asked to give chapter and verse on this.
Any one got a Tribunal Users Meeting coming up? Maybe find out if training has been going on? And, if so, by whom was it provided?

What about sitting on the floor! Had that suggested before.

I think the perching stool one has been going on for a while, at least round here. Suggesting sitting on the floor is a bit much though...

I don't think there has been any caselaw specificaly dealing with perching stools (anyone know different?) but there was quite a useful one about the use of slotted spoons which is perhaps the other classic that we often have to deal with (CDLA/4958/2002). It basicaly takes a common sense view that slotted spoons do not automatically solve the problems with using pans and it might be possible to draw an analogy between that and using a perching stool not always being practical.

A similar 'cooking test' issue is that of bending to the oven.

Previous Cmr decisions state that using the oven is not necessary to cook a main meal, but ultimately the issue is what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This could be read by tribunals as if a claimant could cook something in the grill on top of the cooker then it is not reasonable to argue that bending to the oven is a relevant consideration. Then the claimant will normally not pass the test if problems with bending are the basis for the claim. The 'reasonableness' issue is forgotten about.

On a more general point. Is there scope for challenging any of the past caselaw after Moyna? Cmr Williams in CDLA/1670/2004 comments that Moyna endorses the 'traditional main meal' test but to some extent replaces it (see para 7). Is anyone out there using this to try to get around any of the slooted spoon/perching stool/ bending etc problems? My guess is that we will still be left with most of the old caselaw (see CDLA/2367/2004 which confirms that bending and holding heavy pans is not necessary) but you never know.

In the past I've known occupational therapists raise grave concerns about people being told to use a particular piece of equipment by non experts or buying their own without a proper assessment.

Suggestions about equipment in DWP appeal submissions or by Tribunal members will hardly ever be based on a professional OT asessment and what appears (to a lay person) to work for a claimant, or what should work, can be unsafe and/or might not be appropriate for a particular disability.

So aside from any other considerations (such as the value of Tribunal members' evidence about equipment), it is unwise for Tribunal members to be making suggestions about equipment. Why don't you ask the Chief Executive of TAS if they have asked their insurers whether it is acceptable for people who are not professionally trained to be making suggestions about equipment?

In any event my understanding of Moyna is that the cooking test is effectively a proxy test for disability (and this was also the ministerial intention behind the test when DLA was introduced) so the availability of equipment is not relevant.

See also R(DLA) 2/95 - the equipment available to claimant is irrelevant (see p 153 of Bonner for extract). And equipment which is not available - because they don't have it or because there is a long waiting list for an OT assessment certainly won't be relevant.