Steven wrote: I am appealing the decision to move me from IB to the WRAG and not the SG. To cut a long story short, I had ticked the wrong box regarding moving around and indicated that I could self propel 100M, whereas I can't actually manage more than 30m. I sent a letter from my MS Nurse with my request for a re-consideration, but that was ignored and I have been given an appeal.
On advice from the charity helping me with the appeal I have now sent in a letter from my Neurologist. In the letter he clearly confirms that;
a) I can only walk (with sticks) no more than 15M
b) I can self propel without rest for only up to 30M, and even that is limited
c) I have "significant urge incontinence twice a week"
I didn't expect a reply, but this morning I received one. Apparently the Decision Maker has looked at the Neurologist's letter and does not consider that the decision should be overturned because "the evidence does not suggest that any of the descriptors in schedule 3 are satisfied"
Am I missing something and is this something to be even more worried about than I am already ?
Steven
Hi S,
It could simply mean that the DWP DM has chosen to ignore the Neurologists comments.
"(a) I can only walk (with sticks) no more than 15M"
Seems to show that you fulfill the walking test of the Schedule 3 Mobilising Descriptor, and if :
"(b) I can self propel without rest for only up to 30M, and even that is limited"
Is tied to you self propelling a manual wheelchair unaided, that seems to cover the "virtual wheelchair" aspect, also.
"1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid is normally or could reasonably be worn or used.
1 Cannot either:
(a) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;
or
(b) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion From :
SG (LCWRA)Schedule 3 Descriptors With regards to the incontinence issue, this :
"c) I have "significant urge incontinence twice a week"
"significant urge incontinence", may not be enough, as it has to be :
"8. Absence or loss of control whilst conscious leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder, other than enuresis (bed-wetting), despite the wearing or use of any aids or adaptations which are normally or could reasonably be worn or used.
8 At least once a week experiences:
(a) loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of the bowel and/or voiding of the bladder; or
(b) substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device sufficient to require the individual to clean themselves and change clothing. The DM can choose which evidence they give more credence to.
If this is the case, and the DM is basically ignoring the Neurologist's comments, it will be up to the Tribunal Panel to decide which of the evidence is the most compelling on the balance of probabilities.
You could ask the Neurologist to provide more in depth cross reference to the relevant SG Descriptors, the evidence must also be tied to the date of the adverse WRAG award.
Failing that, it looks like you will have to await your Appeal Hearing.
bro58
