Mr M was admitted to hospital 11/10/04 with complete organ faiure due to acute pancreaitis. He was in ICU, had op november 04 and was discharged 16/12/04..
qualifying periods - 11/10/04 to 11/01/05 (Three months back) and 11/7/05 ( six months forward).
I saw him end Jan and we madde DLA claim as he was completely unable to do anything for himself and needed to use a wheelchair around the house, let alone out of doors.
Decision on DLA made in March 04. They had info from medical service doctor (who did not see client) 12/3/05, who said care needs consistent with illness and likely to last another 6 months. We provided a letter from registrar a couple of weeks later who said complete recovery not for a year.
Nil award on gounds that he didn't satisy either qualifying period.
I argued that at time decision was made there was no dispute about his care needs and that the medicall evidence pointed to him being at a similar level for a further 6 - 12 months.
At hearing today, tribunal consistenntly asked him about his condition in the last 4 months or so. When i remonstrated with the chair, he said that unlike the DM the tribunal has the advantage of hindsight!
I've had a quick look at some decisions which, taken all in all, seem to say that unless the change was evident at the time (e.g. someone's age) of had begun (e.g. recovery) it should not be taken into account.
As someone once said, what is to be done?

Request a statement and consider an appeal to the commissioners.

Start your consideration for the grounds of appeal with the legislation, which I beleive, (without getting off my behind and looking it up) says something along the lines of "LIKELY to qualify for 6 months" and not DID qualify for a further 6 months.

It would be unrealistic to suggest that tribunals could just ignore hindsight but if all the medical evidence at the time was unequivical that he would meet the qualifying conditions for a further 6 months I think you have a stong case. If the claimants conditions did in fact improve, the appropriate award for the tribunal to make would be to award benefit for a fixed 6 months.

That was what i thought. I argued it strenously at the hearing but the Chairman was having none of it.
I then read a couple of Commissioners' decisions. One of them ( 1564) seemed to say that if the change had started at the time of the decision and continued to the time of the hearing (or whenever), tribunal can look at the whole change. On t'other hand, if there was no evidence of the c o c at the time of the decision, it shouldn't. Latter decision gave the case of a woman whose problem was subsequently cured by surgery - at time of surgery her doctor had not suggested an op.
My client was expected to get better and was slowly getting better from time he was discharged in December. So maybe they were right to question him about how it went.
Anyway, request for statement of reasons has gone in.