Hi all, I'm looking for case law on whether or not a parent doing speech and lanauage exercises with their child at home can amount to attention in connection with a bodily function. Recent tribunal decision found that it wasn't and we're looking to appeal it. Child has developmental delay, and possible autism disagnosis. Mother spends at least one hour with her son each night going through specific exercises that the physio and speech therapist have recommended. Went to tribunal with lrc and lrm looking for an increase and lost both components.

Any help with the case law would be very much appreciated.

Bloody hell! I've done a load of simialir cases (succesfully) and never found I needed to rely on caselaw. If such help doesn't amount to attention, why on earth does the claim pack specifically ask about such thereapies and exercises? You got an SoR yet? On what basis does the tribunal say they are not attention?

I know, tell me about it. Normally that kind of thing isn't even disputed as attention. In SoR tribunal refer to CSDLA/427/2006 and R(DLA) 2/02. CSDLA/427 is about homework and help with education for someone with dyslexia. Help with homework was raised at the hearing by his mother so the decision is relevant. The reported decision is about help needed to attract the attention of a deaf person, although it does contain a useful list of general principles in paragraph 34. Neither decision is entirely relevant to the question of speech therapy and phsyio which the tribunal find to not be attention in connection with a bodily function.

We'll be appealing it, it would just be useful to have some case law which sets out clearly that they are wrong so we can get it resolved asap.

I've had the same past experience with cases with children with speech and language deficits as past caring 1, may be worth checking out R (DLA) 01/07 deals with a child with speech and language deficits, i think Mike (Schermer) raised it in 2006 in relation to these sort of scenarios before it was a reported wotsit.

Anyway, i'm in a small town doing outreach, so the above is of the top of my head, but i've got a similar scenario in the pipe line awaiting a hearing date for the appeal. So it struck a chord.

CDLA/1983/2006 said that CDLA/427/2006 should not be followed. CDLA/1983/2006 should be read with CSDLA/133/2005(T) and are directly on point regarding education, reading and writing for people with dyslexia and are the lead cases. Your tribunal was wrong with regard to this issue and the case law it relied on is out of date.

I'd also never had problems with this before until CDLA/1983/2006. I was the rep in that case and the tribunal found that attention in connection with reading and writing for people with dyslexia was not attention in connection with any bodily function. That notion was finally put to bed by CDLA/1983/2006 and CSDLA/133/2005 and should assist you in your case. CSDLA/427/2006 is no longer good law.

Cheers Nevip, I had since found CDLA/3204/2006 as well where Cmmr Jacobs cast doubt on CSDLA/427/06 (can't find full decision though). But CDLA/1983/2006 seems to fit the bill. Thanks again.

Hi.

I think that CDLA/4100/2004 should assist. Very good decision on attention given at home to help deaf child with communication difficulties. Very analagous to your client I'd say, see para 15 below. Although this relates to the bodily function of hearing, speech is also a bodily function and the help needed is similar: see the bit where he says that the claimant needed attention to develop communication skills and acquire language.

"15. I am satisfied that the present claimant does require frequent attention from another person throughout the day in connection with the bodily function of hearing. It is recognised in chapter 39 of The Disability Handbook (2nd edition, TSO) that, if a severely deaf child “is to overcome the disability by being trained to develop social, self-care and learning skills, and effective means of communication, considerable attention must be given by others to this task.” That seems wholly consistent with the submissions and evidence put forward on behalf of the claimant in this case. The medical advice received by the decision-maker seems to have been based on a view that the claimant’s deafness was not all that severe and that her needs would largely be met by her hearing aids. It is pointed out on behalf of the claimant that hearing aids may still leave speech distorted but, in any event, the medical advice appears to have been given in ignorance of the true extent of the claimant’s disability. It is difficult to assess hearing loss in very young children but the view of those concerned with this claimant’s welfare appears clearly to have been that the degree of deafness was such that she required, and would continue to require, much more help than children who are not deaf to ensure she developed communication skills and, in particular, acquired language. By the time of the tribunal hearing, the claimant was receiving “multiple weekly visits” and a substantial purpose of those visits was to equip her parents with the skills necessary to provide the additional attention the claimant required throughout the day. I have no doubt that the extent of the claimant’s deafness is such that she reasonably requires such attention. At the age that the claimant was three months before the date of claim, a child without disability would have been learning to talk and I accept that the claimant required frequent attention throughout the day from then onwards as a result of her deafness and that her needs for attention were, and remain, substantially more than those of children without disabilities."

Cheers Ros