Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Dentures!
My colleague recently came up with the idea that if a PIP claimant wears dentures, they should be able to score 2 points for needing an aid or appliance to take nutrition.
After checking the Regs and Guidance, this seems correct. The definition of ‘taking nutrition’ includes ‘chewing and swallowing’, and surely dentures meet the definition of an aid or appliance, being a device which improves, provides or replaces the impaired physical function of chewing? So if someone uses dentures, and would be unable to reliably chew and eat food without the dentures, they should score.
When it comes to the ‘reading’ descriptor, the Regs specifically exclude people from scoring points if they need glasses or contact lenses. But the ‘taking nutrition’ descriptor doesn’t exclude dentures. The DWP Guidance doesn’t mention dentures either. The DWP Guidance does say that it’s not necessary for people to be able to chew “tough food such as steak”, but I would argue that that implies that people should be able to chew a reasonable range of standard/soft foods.
Do others agree with this interpretation? Is it worthwhile putting dentures on the form, as an aid or appliance? Has anybody actually scored pointson this basis?
Have a look at this decision which covers lots of issues to do with eating, including the use of false teeth.
CE/2156/2015 Use of teeth to chew or swallow food [2015] UKUT 615 (AAC)
eta: albeit for ESA rather than PIP which I’ve just noticed you’re actually asking about.
Yes, ESA is different because the ESA Regs say that ability should be assessed as if wearing any prosthesis/aid which would normally be worn, so if someone can chew effectively with dentures the ESA descriptor won’t apply.
But the PIP Regs allow for claimants to score points if they need to use an aid/appliance for taking nutrition.
[ Edited: 26 Feb 2016 at 12:21 pm by Emma B-G ]Having read through the descriptors and the guidance, I can only agree with you that dentures would appear to fall into the category of an aid or appliance for the purposes of the descriptor.
As take nutrition is defined, in part, as chewing and swallowing food, and if your client’s contention is that they cannot do this without their dentures, then it must be worth a shout. A man (or woman) cannot live off soup alone surely?
I had a look and I think I would have to agree as well. If you don’t have teeth and need dentures to chew food then that would seem to be an ‘aid or appliance’. I can see the point drawing some raised eyebrows.
Never seen anyone get points on this basis though.
Interpreted in PIP Regs
“aid or appliance”–
(a) means any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired physical or mental function; and
(b) includes a prosthesis;
A common dictionary definition of prosthesis is:
“a device, either external or implanted, that substitutes for or supplements a missing or defective part of the body”
I’d argue that it falls under both a and b.
Shoes.
I find walking any appreciable distance without shoes is difficult - stones, hard surfaces etc.
Are shoes an aid?
Depends on the shoes. I have some that are a positive impediment to walking (not that this stops me from wearing them when appropriate).
But seriously, I can imagine scenarios where it would be appropriate to award points in relation to dentures depending on the circumstances. Someone with a learning difficulty or short term memory issues who might need a degree of prompting to manage dentures for example.
Shoes.
I find walking any appreciable distance without shoes is difficult - stones, hard surfaces etc.
Are shoes an aid?
“aid or appliance”–
(a) means any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired physical or mental function;”
So, shoes could surely only “improve” rather than “provide” or “replace” a physical function.
It’s not the item. It’s the context. Thus, dentures, in this context, yes.
Anyway, barefoot runners seem to do okay without shoes! Their mental health could be questioned though.
Interesting to look at shoes with a more serious eye and wonder about orthotics, which vary from simple shoes implants to whole leg caliper type arrangements. Latter relatively straightforward to score points on. Former, less so, and yet…
Client with impaired physical function in spine. Degeneration in lumbar spine. Pain is intermittent but all in spine. Limits mobility in the general sense but also walking can be painful. Slips in orthotics. Gets more mobility and can walk pretty much pain free. 2 points or not?
From the thread yes it seems so.
We could well be arguing dentures and orthotics into the mix.
Ordinary shoes (as distinct from orthotic ones) would not normally be improving an impaired physical function would they? It might be uncomfortable to walk on rough ground without them, but that’s just how it is for most people. “Impaired” means something not functioning as it should as a result of some injury or disability. If you no longer have your own teeth this does impair your ability to chew and the false teeth improve that
Ordinary shoes (as distinct from orthotic ones) would not normally be improving an impaired physical function would they? It might be uncomfortable to walk on rough ground without them, but that’s just how it is for most people. “Impaired” means something not functioning as it should as a result of some injury or disability. If you no longer have your own teeth this does impair your ability to chew and the false teeth improve that
I was talking shoes with added orthotics as opposed to specialist orthotic shoes.
and I was talking ordinary shoes. Comfortable shoes.
and the truth.
and half in jest.
In one case the heel when used in bipedal, biphasic forward propulsion cannot be placed on the ground without discomfort except for when wearing a comfortable shoe thereby limiting distance.
Some 2 point(er)s seem a safe bet for a few people over a ‘certain age’ - regardless of the severity of condition or limitation.
There is no (clear) descriptor for needing an aid to walk though.
There is the strange “c. Can stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres.” but this appears to have been curtailed by the decision in JP - I don’t fully understand that decision so need to start a thread on it.
(edited as I linked the wrong decision)
[ Edited: 1 Mar 2016 at 01:26 pm by Mr Finch ]There is no (clear) descriptor for needing an aid to walk though.
There is the strange “c. Can stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres.” but this appears to have been curtailed by the decision in KL - I don’t fully understand that decision so need to start a thread on it.
D is the only one mentioning aids or appliances.
Was thinking C