Eyupmiduck wrote: If it's of use to anyone, my condition is secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). I was awarded Support Group after a medical in 2009 but was then transferred to the Activity Group after the 2010 medical. I appealed on the grounds that the 2010 medical report was flawed in that the ATOS doctor wrote in it that I had told him I could walk 200 metres before having to stop, which I most certainly did not. What I in fact said to him was that I could walk around 20 yards before having to stop. I did not use the term 'metres', I don't even know what a metre is and where he got the figure of 200 from is anybody's guess, but it certainly wasn't from me. He actually put the question to me like this .. "You can walk 200 metres, yes?" to which I replied "No, it's 20 yards or thereabouts". I had to say this twice to him because he clearly wasn't listening and was more interested in his computer screen than getting vital details correct. He carried on like that all through the medical, "You can do such and such, yes? You can do so and so, yes?" which I thought was bang out of order and I got fed-up of having to repeatedly correct him. I knew the report was going to turn out to be a load of inaccurate codswallop and so it proved, losing me my Support Group status as a result and making me wait over a year for my appeal to be heard.
Not wishing to put a damper on your tribunal success (although I suspect I probably will), since the introduction of the Employment and Support Amendment Regulations 2011, the 'walking' descriptor has now been replaced by the 'mobilising' descriptor.
If your appeal hinged exclusively on the walking descriptor, unless you can qualify on the mobilising or any other support group descriptors, any future WCAs could not succeed on the inability to walk for support group purposes.
Now the flat-screen tv ... hmmm ... 
