Last week I attended a Tribunal with a client for DLA. He had already been awarded LR care. He suffers from Pancreatitis.
During the hearing the medical representative brought up the subject of my clients past drinking, asking him whether he had been an alcholic, ( he gave up drinking in 1990 he said), how much he used to drink, ('Was it one bottle or two of whisky?'), Client remembering those times became upset. Med rep asked if others in the family had been alcholics! I interupted, 'I don't think this is relevant to the claim', only to be told by all three Tribunal members that it was totally relevant.
We got HR care and LR mob so was pleased with results, but have been left with an uneasy feeling about what was said. My understanding is claimants are judged on their ability to cope with their personal care and mobility. Would an obese person be asked how many pizza's a day did they consume 17 years ago. Similarly Anorexia. See where I'm goin with this.
Would be interested in viewpoints

Obviously as your client has got everything he wants you aren't going to appeal. Even so you could always ask for a written reason for the decision - it might show you where the Tribunal was coming from, or you could write to the Regional Chairman of the Tribunals Service and lodge a formal complaint. I certainly can't see the relevance of what happened 17 years ago myself and if the pancreatitis is of recent origin it might not even be related to a long-past history of alcohol abuse (but you'd need to ask a doctor about that).


I bet the Tribunal thought "Wonder if it's drink related?" and couldn't resist asking the question. Maybe someone on the Tribunal has a thing about drink-related illness.

Whether it is drink related is not of any consequence - that's a bit like asking a client suffering from Cancer if they use to smoke, the implication being that if they did then it was self inflicted....

What they should be applying their minds to is whether the medical condition is such that it disables the applicant enough to warrant an award.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions and comments. The medical rep on the Tribunal is also an EMP who has visited several of my clients over the years and about whom Ive had some extraordinary feedback. I think he does have 'issues', about lots of things. I will think about this.

Whilst asking for written reasons might shed some light on the issue, it's worth bearing in mind that, since the statement is sent to both parties, it might alert the DWP to an obvious error in law. It's unlikely, but a risk nonetheless.

I'm wondering (guessing actually) if the relevance could be in the prognosis and hence the length of any award? It maybe that certain types of drinking habits could lead to conditions of a particular type, of which the tribunal may be informed? I suppose the relevance of a long history will vary from one individual to another.

I think you were right to challenge though.