The original NWMHWRG web site contained some references to relevant caselaw. We have brought those cases over to this site but also added links to the full blown cases where we can. If members of the group want to add to that caselaw please use “Contact GMWRAG” and we will happily build on what we already have.
Please note that we’re happy to add caselaw from your own caseload provided it is either anonymised or we have proof of the appellants permission to use having been granted.
WCA Update – updated on the 9th of December 2015
There’s a bit of housekeeping needed on this page. All in due course. In the meantime, you can now view the IM case in all its glory here all the time from now on. Got that? 🙂
We’re sure you’ve all been watching as the judicial review about the WCA process disadvanting specific set of claimants has made its way onwards. The latest position is that the DWP attempt to end the case has failed and this has been welcomed by campaigning organisations such as Mind and Rethink as well as what’s left of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
In case you have any doubt about where this is up to you can find the latest judgement online. We’ll keep you up to date as best we can as this case has clear implications for many more people but the case is getting plenty of media coverage anyway.
SF v SSWP (PIP)  UKUT 481– a rather wonderful new decision, which confirms that PIP renewals are supersessions and therefore decision makers and tribunals must always reference what has changed from the previous award as well as establish the precise grounds of supersession.
CDLA 636 2009 – when a claimant does not in fact use unfamiliar routes the statutory test is based on hypothetical rather than actual conduct.
CDLA 5196/2001 – which establishes the idea that a DLA renewal ought to be a supersession.
CIB/1219/10 – descriptor 18(c) – claimant with anxiety, depression, alcohol dependency and social phobia preference not co communicate or reluctance to do so would not qualify, but where virtual recluse ability to communicate impaired by depression
CIB/1219/10 – Reg 27(b) ‘risk to health’ – Claimant with anxiety, depression, alcohol dependency and social phobia should consider reg 27(b) re risk to health as might suffer significant deterioration on being told benefit claim refused, and/or risk in context of journey to or from work or in the workplace itself, needing some assessment of the type of work for which the claimant is suitable, and ability to seek work and apply for jobseekers allowance and effect on mental health of fruitless and repeated interviews.
The test of normal activities is potentially wide; suggests activities of ‘normal’ people and that ‘overwhelming fear or anxiety’ does not have to be experienced in respect of all normal activities, nor does it have to occur continually to be significant. Question of fact whether intermittent reaction occurring either in temporal or activity terms meets the test, eg someone who is overwhelmed about the idea of going out and rarely does so, may not be overwhelmed when making a phone call to a friend, could meet the descriptor. Balance to be struck between different social situations; where there is evidence of significant problems with some social situations need to explore wider range of situations to make full judgement of the extent of the limitation.
CSE/456/09 – descriptor 14 – (c) – not accept that daily tasks that are so routine as to be second nature should be disregarded, no list of tasks which are included and others which are not, applies to management of overall day to day life based on evidence as whole.
CSE/456/09- descriptor 15 – (d) – need to be one and a half times slower than someone without mental disablement for most of the time not just for some activities.