Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(A)4/92
File Number: CA 51 1989
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner: Mr M. Heald Q.C.
Date Of Decision: 14/08/1991
Date Added: 24/06/2002
Main Category: DLA, AA: personal care
Main Subcategory: supervision: continual daytime
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Supervision – epilepsy – whether lack of warning implies that danger could not be avoided by supervision The claimant suffered from blackouts, epilepsy and narcolepsy. He applied for attendance allowance on 27 September 1985. On 14 November 1985, a delegated medical practitioner decided that the claimant neither satisfied, nor was likely to satisfy, any of the conditions of entitlement in Section 35(1) of the Social Security Act, 1975. The claimant applied to the Attendance Allowance Board for a review of this decision. On 17 February 1988, the Board reviewed, but did not revise the decision, holding that, because of the absence of warning, any risk of blackout could not be avoided by supervision. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held that: the lack of warning in cases of epileptic attacks was not cause enough to refuse benefit. If another person’s presence was sufficient to reduce the amount of danger involved when a sudden attack occurred, then that may be sufficient to comply with the relevant conditions of entitlement. The appeal was allowed.
Decision(s) to Download: A4_92.doc A4_92.doc