PM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2017] UKUT 154 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Gray on 7 April 2017.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
- The FTT found that the appellant바카라 사이트檚 바카라 사이트渇unctional ability might be improved by more regular and better pain relief.바카라 사이트� Whilst the tribunal has the function to enquire, there are certain clinical matters which should be respected. In particular in this case there was the evidence of the consultant that a variety of medication had been tried but was unsuitable. In that circumstance the FTT was wrong in basing its assessment upon her being able to take additional medication to improve her function. In any event the tribunal should be highly circumspect in such an approach.
-
In finding, following observations as to her appearing to engage satisfactorily with health professionals and with the tribunal, that she would be able to engage with others 바카라 사이트渨henever reasonably necessary바카라 사이트�. The FTT applied the wrong test. The definition of 바카라 사이트渆ngage socially바카라 사이트� informs activity 9 (SF-v-SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 543 (AAC)). It includes the ability to establish relationships. The ability, therefore, to engage with people known to her (family and existing friends) or with whom she needs to engage for a specific and limited purpose (health professionals or the tribunal) is insufficient to engage the baseline (zero scoring) descriptor. Further, there is no legal basis for limiting the assessment of her ability to engage with others face to face to such engagement as is reasonably necessary. The purpose of PIP, like DLA before it, is to assist those with disabilities to live, as far as possible, the life that they would wish to live, and any mitigating behaviour adopted because of that disability must be disregarded: EG-v-SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT(AAC).
- As to Mobility Activity 2 the FTT restricted its consideration of her need to walk to that 바카라 사이트榬easonably required바카라 사이트�, perhaps in view if the definition of 바카라 사이트渞epeatedly바카라 사이트�. To the extent that was interpreted to exclude the appellant바카라 사이트檚 choice as to how often she would 바카라 사이트榤ove around바카라 사이트� and replace that choice with an objective test of how often she needed to do so, it was wrong. Unless it is inherently unreasonable an appellant바카라 사이트檚 choice should be respected. I import the dicta of Lord Slynn of Hadley in Secretary of State 바카라 사이트搗-Fairey (R(A) 2/98); although made in the context of the Attendance Allowance scheme the assessment was of attention 바카라 사이트渞easonably required바카라 사이트�.
바카라 사이트� In my opinion the yardstick of a 바카라 사이트渘ormal life바카라 사이트� is important; it is a better approach than adopting the test as to whether something is 바카라 사이트渆ssential바카라 사이트� or 바카라 사이트渄esirable바카라 사이트�. - As to mobility activity 2 the FTT must apply MH & others 바카라 사이트搗- Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC), the decision under appeal being prior to those regulations, and there being no application to stay the effect of MH.