Does anybody have a copy of CDLA/2882/99, commissioner's decision about ME?

Thanks

In the meantime, have a look at CSDLA/265/97 - also ME - useful discussion on physical versus pyscosomatic causes etc....

Thanks Mike

Tue 18-Jan-05 03:52 PM by shawn

I have not been able to track it down, but I now have CDLA4486/2000 where the Commissioner followed CDLA2882/1999.

I also have CDLA5183/1997, CDLA1020/1997 and CDLA5643/1999 where CFS was considered, but CDLA4486/2000 will probably be most useful

I am sending all of them to rightsnet, but would appreciate it if someone could let me have CDLA2882/1992.

As one of the symptoms of CFS is extreme fatigue that can arise up to 48 hours after any significant physical effort, you should argue that the question in the standard emp report form asking how far the person can walk "before the onset of severe discomfort" is not the correct legal test and is certainly inappropriate in realtion to CFS.

You might also cite Commissioner Roland at para 21 of CDLA805/1994

""21. However, Mr Hewitt (on behalf of the adjudication officer) argued that the tribunal ought to have made a finding as to the extent to which the claimant was prevented from walking further after he had walked 400 yards, which was a point the claimant had specifically mentioned in evidence. He submitted that that was relevant to the question of the length of time for which the claimant could walk, which is a relevant consideration under regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) (of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 19911. I have come to the conclusion that he is right. A tribunal is entitled to conclude that a claimant is not virtually unable to walk if he can walk without severe discomfort for 400 yards at a reasonable, albeit slow, pace and, although obliged then to stop for, say, five minutes to recover, can afterwards walk without severe discomfort for a further 400 yards at the same pace. However, it would not be inconsistent were the same tribunal to conclude that a claimant was virtually unable to walk if, after walking the first 400 yards, he had to wait for two hours before being able to walk a further 400 yards. Regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) refers to distance, speed and length of time. As speed is a function of distance and time, it is to be presumed that the purpose of including all three factors is that consideration of the length of time for which a person is able to walk requires an adjudicating authority to take account of limitations as to time beyond the limits necessarily implied by the fact that it must take a certain length of time to walk the distance the claimant can manage at the speed he can manage. Accordingly, I accept that the tribunal's decision is erroneous in point of law because the chairman failed to record any finding on the claimant's assertion that there were periods when he was unable to walk at all after he had walked a moderate distance."

Thanks very much again to stainsby, the following commissioner decisions he has highlighted in his above posting are now available on rightsnet -

CDLA/1020/1997

CDLA/5183/1997

CDLA/5463/1999

CDLA/4486/2000

The correct reference is CDLA/2822/1999. I now have a copy which I will send to rightsnet

Thanks again to stainsby CDLA/2822/1999 is now available on rightsnet.

Fri 11-Feb-05 09:57 AM by ken

The Royal Colleges of Physicians report on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome highlighted by Commissioner Jacobs in CDLA/2822/1999 is now available on rightsnet.

Refering to the report in CDLA/2822/1999 Commissioner Jacobs explains that it -

'... recognised that the syndrome could not be classified as either physical or psychological, but consisted of a mixture of both. The report is well known within the medical profession and, therefore, to those medical practitioners who sat as members of Disability Appeal Tribunals and who now sit as members of the new Appeal Tribunals. Against the background of that report, the decisions of Commissioners like CSDLA/176/1994 need to be reconsidered. A tribunal is now entitled to treat the claimant’s chronic fatigue syndrome (by whatever name it is called) as involving a physical element that is capable of supporting an award of the mobility component at the higher rate'.

The Royal Journal of Physicians website itself has a useful online library resource of reports and articles on other medical conditions.

There is also a the Independent working group's report to the Chief medical Officer into ME/CFS, (published 11.01.02). The press release and brief summary is at

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNotices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4011644&chk=OKUU4O

The full report (93 pages)is available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/95/06/04059506.pdf

Just won a Tribunal for a client with CFS, she had been turned down before and was turned down again last July. A GP's report said that her condition was "mild to moderate"

We challenged the GP's report as inadequate because it was compiled from old notes and the doctor was not her normal GP. He had not seen her personally.

We used the DOH and Royal College reports, along with the more recent Commissioners Decisions. We obtained a short letter from another GP and invited the Tribunal to accept what was to all intents and purposes the clients own almost uncorroborated evidence.

The Tribunal awarded middle rate care and high rate mobility. This will also get her the IS severe disability premium