DLA

Hello, Can anyone assisst me please?

My tribunal is to be held on Monday 17 Jan and I have read and re read the EMP's report and have a query with regard to SEction 2 Clinical Findings, Item 2 Mental State.
One of the EMP's comments reads as follows
"Ratls (Yes thats what it reads as) depressed but has an insight into condition"

Has anyone any indicating what the EMP means by this comment.

As I suffer from severe depression I'm afraid I read this as I am swinging the lead and or I am telling lies about my condition.
Please comment if you can before Monday

I'm not as up to speed with appeals as my fellow mods, but I'm aware that it's late on Friday, so I'll try to help a bit looking at it from the perspective of someone with a knowledge of mental illness and also of DLA andESA.

You don't say whether you are appealing DLA or ESA and I am not sufficiently au fait with the appeal forms to know which.

However, neither DLA nor ESA is awarded on the basis of having depression as such, both would rely on your meeting specific criteria - specific needs in relation to DLA, specific descriptors as to what you can do in relation to ESA.

Therefore, this seems to be a background comment and not addressed to any specific descriptor or criterion.

It might make sense in relation to what else is said. For example if the claim is for DLA and you say that you need supervision because of the risk of suicide, saying that you have insight might suggest that you would see the risk and take steps yourself to get help.

Insight, however, does not mean swinging the lead, it just means that you are aware of your condition. For example, someone who hears voices but who has insight might recognise that the voices are not real but that wouldn't mean that they didn't hear them or that they weren't distracted and distressed by them.

i also have good insight into my depression and today lost my appeal.being told iam intelligent so should be able to look after myself.what i think they mean by insight is you know your depressed and are aware of any dangerous situations.good luck

I'm sorry you lost your appeal, Tashas. It seems like Paul needs to show how either he has less insight than they think (perhaps it's variable?) or that the fact that he has insight does not mean that he does not meet the criteria. (Assuming that he does.)