Further Memorandum submitted by Department of Social
Security (DLA 23)
SELECTION OF
ANONYMISED CASE
STUDIES
DLA RULES AND
PROCEDURES
In order to make the example cases easier to interpret
the following explanation of entitlement conditions for DLA is
reproduced (also contained at Annex A of the memorandum at pages
58-59 above).
Entitlement
1. DLA is designed to help severely disabled people under
the age of 65 with extra costs incurred because they need help
with personal care and/or have mobility needs. It provides extra
help for those disabled early in life who have lost the opportunity
to earn and save. Once awarded, DLA may continue in payment after
the age of 65, if the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions
of entitlement. A similar scheme exists in Northern Ireland.
2. Entitlement is based on the effect of disability
on a person's need for help with personal care and/or mobility
needs. It does not depend on specific disabilities. Claimants
must have needed help for three months and be likely to continue
to need help for at least a further six months. People who are
terminally ill and not expected to live for longer than six months
do not have to wait three months in order to receive help. In
addition these cases are given high priority with the BA aiming
to achieve a 10 working day turnaround between claim and notice
of award.
3. DLA has two components, care and mobility, and a claimant
may be awarded both. The care component has three rates and the
mobility component two. The amount payable depends on the claimant's
care and mobility needs. The mobility component is payable only
to those aged five or over.
Lowest rate of care component
4. To qualify for the lowest rate of the care component,
claimants must be so severely disabled physically or mentally
that they require attention in connection with their bodily functions,
such as washing, toiletting or dressing, for a significant portion
of the day (whether during a single period or a number of periods)
or are over 16 and would be unable to prepare a cooked
main meal for themselves even if they have the ingredients (the
main meal test).
5. The main meal test is a hypothetical examination of ability
to prepare and cook a meal, which is seen as a proxy of ability
to perform a wide range of household tasks. These include both
physical and mental activities, such as manual dexterity, ability
to stand, bend and reach, and ability to plan and execute activities.
The test is independent of the household appliances which are
available to the claimant.
Middle rate of care component
6. To qualify for the middle rate of the care component,
claimants must be so severely disabled physically or mentally
that throughout the day they require frequent attention in connection
with bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid
substantial danger to themselves or others or at night
they require prolonged or repeated attention in connection with
bodily functions or that in order to avoid substantial
danger to themselves or others they need another person to be
awake for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals for the
purpose of watching over them.
Highest rate of care component
7. To qualify for the highest rate of the care component
claimants must be so severely disabled physically or mentally
that they require attention day and night as referred to
above for the middle rate.
Children and the care component
8. Children have two additional tests to satisfy in order
to qualify for the care component, designed to take account of
the fact that all children have care needs to some degree. These
are that they have care needs substantially in excess of those
of a non disabled child of the same age or have substantial
requirements that younger children in normal physical and mental
health might have but that children of the same age in normal
physical and mental health would not have.
Higher rate of mobility component
9. The condition of someone qualifying for the mobility component
must be such that they can "from time to time benefit from
enhanced facilities for locomotion". To qualify for the higher
rate claimants must be so physically disabled that they are unable
or virtually unable to walk, or be both deaf and blind,
or be severely mentally impaired, display severe behavioural
problems, and satisfy the conditions for the higher rate of care
component. Invalid vehicle (trike) users can transfer their benefit
automatically to the higher rate mobility component and are not
subject to any age restrictions.
10. Satisfying the unable/virtually unable to walk condition
is independent of where a claimant lives or the place or nature
of their employment. Claimants will fail the unable/virtually
unable to walk condition if by wearing or using a prothesis or
artificial aid they would no longer be unable/virtually unable
to walk, but those who have lost both legs qualify automatically.
Factors in deciding whether someone may be virtually unable to
walk relate to how far their ability to walk out of doors without
severe discomfort is limited by the distance they can walk, the
speed at which they can walk, how long they can walk and in what
manner they can walk. The condition is satisfied if the exertion
required to walk would constitute a danger to the claimant's life
or would be likely to lead to a significant deterioration in health.
11. The severe behavioural disorder condition applies where
the claimant exhibits disruptive behaviour which is extreme, regularly
requires someone to intervene to impose physical restraint in
order to prevent physical injury to the claimant or others or
damage to property, and is so unpredictable that someone
must be present and watching over the claimant whenever the claimant
is awake.
12. The severe mental impairment condition applies where
a claimant suffers from a state of arrested development or incomplete
physical development of the brain, which results in severe impairment
of intelligence and social functioning. This was originally intended
for people with congenital disability, but has been extended by
a recent Commissioner's decision, which has stated that the brain
can continue to develop up to the age of 30.
Lower rate of mobility component
13. For claimants to qualify for the lower rate of mobility
component a person must be so severely physically or mentally
disabled that, although able to walk, they cannot make use of
the faculty outdoors without guidance or supervision from another
person. In addition, those under age 16 must also show that they
require substantially more guidance or supervision than their
able bodied counterparts.
CASE 1
Original claim
New claim to DLA 10 June 1992. Disability-Hypertension and
Angina.
Mobility needs were described as difficulty with walking,
customer got giddy and had a pain in their neck which went down
into their arm. The customer stated that they could walk 25 yards
in five to six minutes, got very tired after walking this short
distance and had problems with balance and breathlessness. The
effort of walking was likely to bring on an angina attack and
that these difficulties were constant. The customer continued
to state that they were likely to fall, trip or stumble when outside
and sometimes had dizzy spells and therefore required their spouse
to accompany them.
Care needs were described as help on one to three days to
have a bath. This roughly took 30 minutes at a time. No other
care needs were stated.
A medical report was obtained from customer's General Practitioner.
Having considered all the evidence including the claim pack
and the medical report an adjudication officer decided that the
customer was entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component
from and including 23 April 1992 but that they did not satisfy
the criteria for an award of any rate of the care component.
A review request was received from customer in Janaury 1994.
Customer's condition had deteriorated and customer was now requesting
the care component. A claim pack was received and customer described
their care needs as six to seven days a week help to get in and
out of the bath, help with getting dressed and undressed, help
with medication, on three to four days the customer stated that
they needed someone to keep an eye on them as the customer got
confused. At night six to seven nights a week help was required
to get the bed clothes back onto the bed, help to go to the bathroom
and for medication and this help was required between two and
four times a night. Customer concluded that he also needed someone
to be awake seven nights a week, seven times a night because he
suffered from dizziness and nerves.
No further evidence was sought and an adjudication officer
decided after careful consideration of the evidence on file together
with the information supplied by the customer and decided that
the customer was entitled to the middle rate of the care component
from and including 10 October 1993. Award was back-dated three
months from review request. Mobility was not considered as the
award was for life.
The BIP findings
A postal enquiry was completed and received on 25 July 1997.
Claimed mobility needs walking difficulties. Customer stated
that he uses a walking stick and needs someone to be with him
when outside. Customer can walk 25-30 yards in 10-12 minutes.
He complains of shortness of breath and pains in knees and backs
of legs. Care needs are seven days a week help is required to
get out of bed, help to get dressed and undressed, help with going
up and down stairs and help with medication. On three days a week
customer requires help with preparing a main meal including chopping.
On seven nights a week between two and three times a night customer
requires help with toilet and once a night every night with medication.
A representative of the Secretary of State considered that
a medical report from the customer's General Practitioner would
be appropriate.
A medical report was obtained from the General Practitioner
and returned on 2 September 1997 showing that the customer was
suffering from Hypertension, angina and a painful right foot.
The upper limbs were not badly affected by arthritis. The General
Practitioner was not able to state with confidence how far the
customer could usually walk but he stated that he should be able
to walk 50 yards (45 metres) at least.
The General Practitioner stated that the customer could:
walk on the level indoors, get in and out of bed, dress and undress,
attend to his/her toilet needs using normal aids such as a commode
or bottle if necessary, use taps and use a cooker but he could
not peel and chop vegetables nor cope with hot pans.
The customer has hypertension which could lead to falls but
the hypertension is well controlled.
There was no reason why the customer could not get up if
he/she fell.
The case was referred to an adjudication officer to determine
whether the customer was in receipt of the correct level of entitlement.
All the evidence, including the postal questionnaire and the medical
report was available for consideration.
The adjudication officer determined the customer satisfied
the conditions of entitlement for the higher rate of the mobility
component and the lowest rate of the care component from 2 September
1997 (the date of receipt of the medical report).
The customer was notified of the decision together with information
of what to do if they were dissatisfied with the decision on 29
September 1997.
We have not heard anything from the customer since the decision
was issued.
CASE 2
Original claim
New claim 21 January 1993. Disability—Deafness and
Osteo Arthritis.
Mobility needs stated were difficulties with walking, uses
a walking stick. Customer stated he could walk 100 yards but was
in constant pain whilst doing so. Customer tired after walking
a short distance and was out of breath.
Care needs stated help on one to three days a week included
getting in and out of bed, getting out of a chair, cutting up
food and then on four to five days help with the cooker and coping
with hot pans. Customer also felt that they needed supervision
whilst cooking and getting out of bed. At night help was required
one to three nights a week to change sheets. After an initial
disallowance in full, customer was awarded the higher rate of
the mobility component from 21 January 1993 for life.
Customer notified this unit that their condition had deteriorated
on 27 October 1993. Care needs were described as attention needs
six to seven days help was required getting in and out of bed,
getting washed, bathed or showered, getting dressed or undressed,
getting out of a chair, walking around indoors, going up and down
stairs using a wheelchair and help to prepare a main meal. For
supervision needs customer stated that help was required because
of falls. Corroboration from General Practitioner was held so
no further evidence was obtained. The adjudication officer decided
having considered all the available information that the customer
satisfied the criteria for middle rate of the care component from
28 July 1993 for life because the customer needed help during
the day with bodily functions. Customer's award was backdated
for three months before the date the request for care was received.
The BIP findings
A postal enquiry was completed and returned on 17 December
1997.
The customer stated arthritis of the spine, a slipped disc
and deafness. The claimed mobility needs were problem with balance
and in constant pain. Customer made no attempt to estimate his
walking ability. Care needs were described as help required seven
days a week with getting in and out of bed, getting washed and
having a bath, getting dressed and undressed, getting to the toilet
day and night, getting out of a chair, walking indoors, going
up and down stairs, help with coping with hot pans and help with
turning in bed. Considerable care needs were claimed.
The Secretary of State's representative considered that a
medical report from the customer's General Practitioner would
be appropriate.
A medical report was obtained from the General Practitioner
and returned on 2 February 1998.
The General Practitioner stated that the customer was capable
of self care, and that he was unaware that the customer had any
problem walking. Indeed, he was glad to report that the customer
was in good health.
The case was referred to an adjudication officer to determine
whether the customer was in receipt of the correct level of entitlement.
All the evidence, including the postal questionnaire and the medical
report, was available for consideration.
The adjudication officer determined that the customer did
not satisfy the conditions of entitlement to either the care or
mobility component at any rate from and including 19 January 1998.
The decision was notified to the customer together with information
of what to do if they were dissatisfied on 12 February 1998.
We have not heard anything from the customer since the decision
was notified.
CASE 3
Original claim
Customer originally claimed Mobility Allowance (MobA) 7 February
1984 Disability—Arthritis knees and hips.
Customer's statement suffering from Arthritis for many years.
Walks slowly and stiffly about 30 yards before having a rest.
MobA examination observed customer walking 18 yards each
way taking several minutes to cover this distance. Customer walked
with a slow, shuffling gait and leant heavily on two sticks. Customer
seemed breathless after test.
Based on this an award of MobA was made from 7 February 1984
to age 75 years. This award was converted to one of higher rate
mobility DLA from 6 April 1992 for life.
On 18 October 1995 customer advised that condition had deteriorated
and asked to be considered for the care component of DLA.
Care needs were described as six to seven days a week help
with getting in and out of bed, getting dressed and undressed,
getting out of a chair, going to the toilet and taking medicine.
On five days a week customer stated he needed help to get washed
or having a bath. Customer also stated he needed help at night
six to seven nights a week to get to the toilet, get in and out
of bed and change his sheets. All this was needed at least once
or twice a night.
Adjudication officer considered all the evidence on file
including the new information from the customer and a medical
report from customer's General Practitioner and decided that the
customer was entitled to the highest rate of the care component
of DLA for help with personal care both day and night from and
including 18 July 1995. Award backdated for three months before
request for extra help received.
The BIP findings
A Visiting Officer arranged to visit the customer on 26 September
1997.
Customer stated that they still required help with mobility.
They were now using a scooter to get around outside. They confirmed
that they were breathless and complained of pain in legs. Customer
felt they could walk 10 yards in three to five minutes. Balance
was a problem and customer was in severe discomfort after walking
this distance.
Few care needs were stated. Customer still required help
seven days a week with bathing, getting in and out of bed, getting
dressed and undressed. No help was specified for toilet needs
either during the day or night. Customer lived in a bungalow and
was walking around indoors with sticks.
The Secretary of State's representative considered that no
further medical evidence was necessary and referred the case to
an adjudication officer.
The adjudication officer determined that there were not sufficient
care needs to satisfy the conditions of entitlement for any rate
of the care component. The care component was disallowed from
and including 26 September 1997, however the customer's entitlement
to the higher rate of the mobility component remains unchanged.
The customer was notified of the decision together with what
to do next if they were dissatisfied with the decision on 21 October
1997.
We have not heard anything from the customer since the decision
was issued.
CASE 4
Original claim
New claim 14 August 1992 Disability—Stroke.
Claimed mobility needs difficulty with walking. Customer
uses a walking stick and can walk 10-12 metres. Condition is variable
and gets tired after walking short distances.
Care needs described as none. Another claim pack received
around the same time indicating care needs as follows six to seven
days a week help with getting in and out of bed, getting dressed
and undressed getting around indoors, going up and down stairs,
getting washed, getting to the toilet and help with a commode
at night. Customer also required help to prepare a main meal.
Following advice from an officer in the Benefit Agency Medical
Services an adjudication officer decided after carefully considering
all the available evidence that customer was entitled to the higher
rate mobility component and the highest rate of the care component
of DLA from and including 14 August 1992.
The BIP findings
A Visiting Officer arranged to visit the customer on 21 October
1997.
The customer stated in the questionnaire that he could walk
100-125 yards (90-112.5 metres) in three to four minutes before
feeling severe discomfort, however he occasionally goes over on
his ankles.
The customer stated minimal care needs; that he needed help
preparing a cooked main meal.
The Secretary of State's representative did not consider
that a medical report was necessary and referred the case to an
adjudication officer.
The adjudication officer determined that the customer did
not satisfy the conditions of entitlement to the higher rate of
the mobility component from and including 21 October 1997, nor
the highest or middle rate of the care component, however it was
determined that he satisfied the conditions of entitlement for
the lowest rate of the care component from and including 21 October
1997.
The customer was notified of the decision together with information
of what to do if they were dissatisfied with the decision on 31
October 1997.
We have not heard anything from the customer since the decision
was issued.
CASE 5
Original claim
New claim received 2 September 1992 Disability—Peripheral
Neuropathy.
Mobility needs described as difficulty in walking. Customer
uses a walking stick and estimates his walking ability as 20 steps
in eight minutes. Customer is in severe pain has a problem with
balance and gets tired after walking a short distance.
Care needs are described as six to seven days a week help
is required with getting out of chair, getting to the toilet,
walking around indoors, with medication, preparing a main meal
and getting out of bed. On four to five days help is required
to get washed and having a bath. At night customer stated help
was required six to seven nights a week coping with sickness,
help with suppositories and help with propping up the pillows.
Following a medical examination the adjudication officer
decided having considered all the available evidence including
the medical report from the independent doctor that the customer
was entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component and
the middle rate of the care component of DLA from and including
2 September 1992.
The BIP findings
A postal enquiry was completed and received on 28 May 1997.
Mobility needs described as walking difficulties. Customer
uses a stick, is unsteady and falls over. He needs someone with
him when outside. He can walk 12-15 yards in two to three minutes.
Care needs described as seven days a week help with getting
out of bed and getting washed. Customer lives in a bungalow and
has poor balance and is unsteady. Customer struggles to get to
the toilet but does on his own. No night time needs requested.
A representative of the Secretary of State considered that
a medical report from the customer's General Practitioner would
be appropriate.
A medical report was obtained from the General Practitioner
and returned on 7 July 1997 showing that the customer was suffering
from peripheral neuropathy.
The General Practitioner stated that the customer could;
walk on the level indoors, dress and undress and attend to his
toilet needs using normal aids. The General Practitioner also
stated that the customer did not have any disability which would
prevent him planning or preparing a main meal.
The case was referred to an adjudication officer to determine
whether the customer was in receipt of the correct level of entitlement.
All the evidence, including the postal questionnaire and the medical
report was available for consideration.
The adjudication officer determined that the customer was
not entitled to any rate of the care component from and including
2 July 1997 (the date the General Practitioner signed the medical
report), however the mobility component remained unchanged at
the higher rate.
The customer was notified of the decision on 23 July 1997
together with what to do if they were dissatisfied with the decision.
We have heard anything from the customer since the decision
was issued.
CASE 6
Original claim
Claim to Mobility Allowance (MobA) 21 November 1985.
Disability—Ankylosing Spondylitis and Osteo-arthritis
right hip joint.
Customer stated he walked 20 yards and then had to stop because
of severe pain in his spine, right hip and down his right leg.
Examination showed marked forward stoop and balance was poor.
All movements were very limited.
Following this MobA. awarded from 21 November 1985 to age
75—this was converted to a life award of Higher Rate Mobility
(DLA) from and including 6 April 1992.
On 17 February 1995 a request for the care component of DLA
was received. In this claim pack the customer stated that help
was required six to seven days a week with getting out of bed,
getting washed and bathed, getting dressed/undressed, getting
to the toilet, getting out of a chair and at night six to seven
nights a week help was required with the changing of sheets and
getting to the toilet. This help was required between one to three
times a night. On one to three days help was required with medication
and massage to ease the pain, and cutting up food.
Based on the evidence held on the file and the new information
supplied by the customer, an Adjudication Officer (AO) awarded
the Highest Rate Care component from 17 November 1994 to 16 November
1996. (Award was backdated for three months from review request.)
There followed a renewal claim for the Care component in
June 1996. Customer confirmed that the same level of help was
required and that he now also needed help to prepare a main meal.
Customer added that he fell and had difficulty getting up again
due to his back problems.
No further evidence was sought and an AO decided to award
the Highest Rate Care for life from 25 June 1996 (date the renewal
claim pack was received). Mobility was not considered as there
was already a life award.
The BIP findings
A Visiting Officer arranged to visit the customer to complete
a questionnaire on 26 February 1998.
The customer described his current mobility needs as difficulty
with walking. Customer advised that walking stick was used although
it was painful to hold because of his hand. He added that walking
caused severe discomfort and he had balance problems. He estimated
that he could walk 30 yards on a good day in three to five minutes.
He would suffer from shortness of breath and getting very tired.
He felt having someone with him was helpful because of panic attacks.
The care needs were described as seven days a week help with
getting in and out of bed, help with washing and bathing, with
getting dressed/undressed, getting to and using the toilet, getting
out of a chair, walking around indoors, going up and down stairs,
help with medication, help with preparing a meal and cutting up
food. At night seven nights a week customer needed help with turning
over in bed and getting to and using the toilet. This help was
required twice a night. He added that he liked to have someone
with him in case of falls and panic attacks and that this help
was required every day and night.
A representative of the Secretary of State considered that
a medical report from the customer's General Practitioner (GP)
would be appropriate.
A medical report was obtained from the GP and returned on
18 April 1998. The GP confirmed the disability of Advanced Ankylosing
Spondylosis and right hip pain with Iritis. He confirmed customer
needed help with bodily functions like getting in and out of bed,
rising from a chair, toilet needs and that his walking ability
was limited. GP could not confirm customer's ability to prepare
a main meal.
The representative of the Secretary of State decided that
there was no grounds to review the case and confirmed the award
of Higher Rate Mobility and Highest Rate Care for life. Customer
was notified of this on 29 April 1998.
CASE 7
Original claim
New Claim made 18 June 1994. Disability—Severe Pain
in Back.
Claimed Mobility needs—difficulties with walking. Customer
states he uses crutches and walking stick and wheelchair on occasions.
Customer is in severe pain when walking and this is constant and
has problems with walking. Estimation of walking ability is NIL,
as customer cannot walk any distance without severe discomfort.
Customer states likely to fall so needs someone with them when
outside.
Care needs described as: six to seven days help with getting
dressed/undressed, having a bath and going up and down stairs.
On four to five days help is required getting to and using the
toilet and getting out of a chair. On one to three days help is
required with getting out of bed and getting washed. Customer
also felt that having someone to watch over was essential most
of the time because of falls. At nights no help was needed.
A medical examination was requested by an independent medical
practitioner. Based on his clinical findings he confirmed that
the customer had either limited or nil function in the lower body
and had full function in the upper body. He confirmed customer's
walking ability and stated in their opinion what help was required
with bodily functions.
Having carefully considered all the evidence including the
claim pack and medical report, an Adjudication Officer decided
to award the customer the higher rate of the mobility component
and the middle rate care component for day needs from and including
18 June 1994.
A review request for the higher rate care component was received
11 June 1996. Night needs were described as six to seven nights
a week help with getting to and using the toilet, help with turning
over, getting into the right position, changing the sheets and
taking medication. All this help was required at least three times
a night.
No further evidence was sought and an AO considered carefully
the evidence on file together with the new information from the
customer and decided to award the highest rate care component
from and including 11 March 1996. (Award was backdated for three
months from review request.)
The BIP findings
A visiting officer arranged to visit the customer to complete
a questionnaire on 14 April 1998. (Previously arranged on 4 March
1998 but cancelled at customer's request).
Claimed mobility needs—difficulty with walking. Customer
advised uses two walking sticks. Estimation of walking, three
to four paces in one minute. Customer stated walking causes severe
discomfort, gets very tired, is breathless and has a problem with
balance. Customer admits needing someone with him when out of
doors.
Care needs—are seven days a week, help with getting
in and out of bed, getting washed, getting dressed/undressed,
getting to and using the toilet, getting out of a chair, walking
around indoors, taking medicines, going up and down stairs, using
a cooker and coping with hot pans. On three to four days customer
also needs help to shower. At night, seven nights week, customer
needs help getting to and using the toilet and needs this help
twice a night. Customer feels that someone needs to be awake four
nights a week to massage legs when in pain. Because of falls during
the day customer needs help as they cannot get up on their own.
The Secretary of State representative considered that no
other evidence was required and decided that after carefully considering
all the available information that the customer was receiving
the correct entitlement.
Customer was notified of this on 29 April 1998.
CASE 8
Original claim
Claim to Mobility Allowance (MobA) 1 August 1995.
Disability—Rheumatoid Arthritis, disc problems, Angina
and part of lung removed following cancer.
Customer stated able to walk 10 yards, then breathless and
complains of pain. Examination observed to walk seven yards extremely
slowly and stopped due to breathlessness and pain.
Mobility Allowance awarded from 1 August 1995 to age 75.
This was converted to the higher rate mobility component of DLA
from and including 6 April 1992.
Claim to Attendance Allowance (AA) on 26 February 1986.
Care needs described as help with some dressing, washing
and bathing, help with going up/down stairs. No night needs claimed.
Examination confirmed disability and following an initial disallowance
by the Attendance Allowance Board was awarded following review
from 14 February 1986 for one year at the lower rate of AA.
A renewal claim followed and similar help was described including
help with toilet needs without a further examination the AA Board
awarded the lower rate of AA from 15 May 1987 for five years.
There followed a further renewal claim when care needs for during
the day were described by the customer. Again no further evidence
was sought and the AA Board awarded the lower rate of AA from
23 January 1992 for life. This was converted to middle rate care
component of DLA from 6 April 1992.
The BIP findings
A postal questionnaire was completed and received on 19 January
1998.
Mobility claimed needs were described as difficulty in walking.
Customer uses a walking stick and estimates walking ability as
14 yards in five minutes. Customer states walking causes severe
discomfort, breathlessness and problems with balance. Customer
also feels they need someone with them when out of doors because
their legs give way.
Care needs described as seven days a week help with getting
up and down stairs, medication, preparing a main meal and cutting
up food. On five days a week help is required having shower and
getting undressed. On four days a week help is required getting
washed, getting dressed, using incontinence pads and getting out
of a chair. On three days a week help is required coping with
incontinence. Customer also feels supervision is required in case
they have a fall or an angina attack and that this help is required
seven days a week.
At night customer describes help is required seven nights
a week with coping with incontinence and using incontinence pads
and medication. On five nights a week help is required changing
sheets and getting into the right position.
A representative of the Secretary of State considered that
a medical report from the customer's GP would be appropriate.
A medical report was obtained from the GP and returned on 26 March
1998. The GP confirmed disability and that help was required with
most bodily functions including getting in and out of bed at night
an confirmed walking limitation.
The representative of the Secretary of State referred the
case to an Adjudication Officer to consider grounds for review.
After obtaining (by telephone on 28 April 1998) further details
form the customer, the AO decided after carefully considering
all the available evidence including the recent questionnaire
and medical report, to maintain the mobility award of higher rate
but increased the care component to the highest rate from and
including 28 July 1997. However payment had to be restricted to
one month before the date of application. (Customer advised that
increased care needs arose approximately 12 months before contact
by unit.) The AO considered that payment of the arrears of benefit
were payable from 24 December 1997. Arrears of benefit for the
highest rate component less what was paid for the middle rate
for the period 24 December 1997 to 5 May 1998 were paid to the
customer on 29 April 1998.
| 
