We recently won an award at tribunal for high rate care and high rate mobility. The DWP have challenged the award of high rate mobility and will now take it to the Commissioners. Anybody know of any recent Commissioners decisions that might be of help to us?

I would be very interested in the grounds on which the Tribunal felt that High rate mobility was applicable - what rate of Crae was awarded?

Hi

High rate care was awarded. The tribunal chair in his written reasons was very clear that the person's care and supervision needs warrented such an award. He felt the same about the high rate mobility.

Does that mean the chair accepted severe mental impairment? Would have thought that was the only route to high mobility if no physical problems with walking. Can't say I've ever got high mobility for ADHD cases. Suspect the DWP are challenging it if chair has not mentioned this.

I can't recall the last time we ever had high rate mob for ADHD. Although it would appear that your tribunal assumed that ADHD equals severe mental impairment, you can't go down that route because these children are not severely mentally impaired - if anything, their IQ's are often found to be slightly above the average. What evidence did the tribunal have to point it in the direction of HR Mob?

For further reading see R(M)1/83, which seems to clarify this area - just posted to the Disabilities thread.

Here is the link to Mike's posting of the full decision in R(M) 1/83.

even if IQ is above 55 you can still argue SMI where evidence exists of impairment of social functioning which has effect on useful intelligence. I have argued case successfully at tribunal for HRMC where Consultant confirmed complete lack of sense of danger which was in turn accepted as SMI.

I've also succeeded using the argument of impairment of social functioning and ability to apply intelligence in social situations.

I've also used an argument that it would actually be impossible to measure IQ as child would not sit to do it and was supported in this by psychologist.

However, these have been in cases re Autistic Spectrum not ADHD

yes, cases I took involved children with aspergers but the same argument might well run on this point I would have thought.

Hi every one

I now have the reason for appeal from the DWP. They are arguing that the tribunal made no findings about the claimants intelligence.

Now in other cases I have worked on with people with aspergers or who are autistic the question has been, as some of you have said, how is the intelligence used. I have used CDLA/6219/1997 in the past where the Commissioner has referred to the absence of "qualities of insight and sagacity". The boy in question clearly showed no thought or understanding of why he did what he did or to the danger to both himself and others that resulted from his actions. We were also able to show evidence on the advancement of brain scanning that pointed to ADHD being a result of "incomplete developement of the brain." I actually used the above Commissioners decision as one of my arguments.

The chair of the tribunal also added that he was aware of CDLA 5153/97 which I have not read yet. If any one has got it that would be great,

PS thanks for all the info you have so far given me. I think I have an argument.

A copy of CDLA/5153/97 is available via Commissioner Howells site @ www.hywels.clara.co.uk

Tony

you said that - "We were also able to show evidence on the advancement of brain scanning that pointed to ADHD being a result of "incomplete developement of the brain."

I would be most interested in seeing that type of evidence - any chance of emailing me with it?

mike.shermer@west-norfolk.gov.uk