There are several Commissioners' decisions on the matter of whether ME is physical in origin and certainly the prevalent view is that it is so.
Earlier this year I repped in Sheffield and sent in a submission before the hearing explaining that wile the claimant CAN perform task A and task B she cannot perform B immediately after A but will need to rest for a long period in between. Therefore, for long spells in the day she does need help with bodily functions. The Chair was a gem. She went for that argument and awarded middle rate care and high rate mobility even though the EMP report had been unfavourable.
Tried the same approach since in Derby. With much less success.
The moral of this story, I suppose, is that a case where the claimant has ME is much like any other. If the Chair is prepared to listen sympathetically you will get a good result, but if not you probably won't. On the other hand, if you have put in a detailed submission before the hearing and you still get an unfavourable decision, the Chair's written reasons have to be very thorough if they are not to leave you with grounds to go to the Commissioner.
|