|
Wed 08-Feb-06 10:44 AM by shawn
Could I get a job as a headline writer? 
Have just read through the Court of Appeal decision in Batty .... see yesterday's rightsnet news story
Obviously not very helpful - Comm. Williams had allowed an appeal by a disabled woman (who clearly came across to all involved as very deserving) for Attendance Allowance- he awarded the allowance to her on the basis that the reasonable need to have hot drinks carried to her during the day was attention in connection with the bodily function of drinking.
Court of Appeal reversed that decision on the basis that it was not sufficiently close and immediate attention.
Having read through it, I thought:
1. Seems that Ramsden was not cited to the Court (R(DLA)2/03). That was another case where similar matters were considered (I don't think it would have helped much as the issue in Ramsden was much more compelling and it had a lot more force (eg court more likely to say coping with after effects of faecal incontinence is attention that coping with a need that arises a bit before drinking can be done). However, the case is useful if highlighting the "grey area" concerning the close and immediate attention issue.
2. It seems to have been uncritically accepted before the Comm. in this case that help getting a mobility scooter into a car was not assistance with the bodily function of moving the limbs to walk (it was not argued). I would have thought that that was actually a stronger point than the drinking one. Woman had a scooter. That was her substitute for walking. She could not use it unless it was conveyed to where she needed to use it. She could not get it into the car. She cannot "walk" without that assistance etc etc.
Would like to know whether people think the second point is not a runner.
| 
