- Posts: 654
× Members
esa substantial risk
- DRAGON2009
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
11 years 3 months ago - 11 years 3 months ago #97558 by DRAGON2009
esa substantial risk was created by DRAGON2009
I noticed that on this web page there are some details of changes to the substantial risk regulations applying to esa
in particular it is stated that substantial risk will not apply in certain stances where medication from a general practitioner would assist the person manage their condition. however, I am wondering what happens in the case of a person who is phobic about medication?
I remember that with regards to incapacity benefit, and possibly employment support lands as well, provisions existed whereby a person neglected medical treatment they could be disqualified from benefit unless it could be shown that there were strong grounds such as fear. I am paraphrasing what may be poorly recalled information that I read some time ago but I'm mentioning it be close the possibility that somebody may have a fear of a particular medical treatment, be it surgery or medication, was factored in so that this could not be prejudicial to an individual with such problems. So really, I'm wondering whether this business of medication from a GP, in respect of the substantial risk provisions, is an absolute rule, or whether a person's well founded fear of medication has relevance.
I just wonder if anybody on the forum, moderators etc have any further information about this aspect I can see that decision-makers are going to try and get medical advice from medical services are there any conceivable medications that might make some difference and then use it against any individual who could theoretically receive this medication
thank you
in particular it is stated that substantial risk will not apply in certain stances where medication from a general practitioner would assist the person manage their condition. however, I am wondering what happens in the case of a person who is phobic about medication?
I remember that with regards to incapacity benefit, and possibly employment support lands as well, provisions existed whereby a person neglected medical treatment they could be disqualified from benefit unless it could be shown that there were strong grounds such as fear. I am paraphrasing what may be poorly recalled information that I read some time ago but I'm mentioning it be close the possibility that somebody may have a fear of a particular medical treatment, be it surgery or medication, was factored in so that this could not be prejudicial to an individual with such problems. So really, I'm wondering whether this business of medication from a GP, in respect of the substantial risk provisions, is an absolute rule, or whether a person's well founded fear of medication has relevance.
I just wonder if anybody on the forum, moderators etc have any further information about this aspect I can see that decision-makers are going to try and get medical advice from medical services are there any conceivable medications that might make some difference and then use it against any individual who could theoretically receive this medication
thank you
Last edit: 11 years 3 months ago by Gordon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51071
11 years 3 months ago #97565 by Gordon
The specific words of the amendment are;
I am pre-empting any advice that will be made in our amended guides.
In my view there is a clear difference between the amended regulation and the advice being given to Decision Makers.
The amendment is clearly states "where medication has been prescribed", the word "reasonable" is not stated nor I believe, can it be implied from the amendment, however, the advice to Decision Makers includes an example.
The suggestion in this is that with the reasonable adjustment of her carrying an adrenaline auto–injector and medical alert bracelet, she would no longer meet the criteria. Now obviously if she has been prescribed these items, then I believe the example would be relevant, however, if for some reason she had not been, then I do not believe that it would.
The problem is that this may only be something that is resolved by an Upper Tribunal Judge.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic esa substantial risk
XFACTOR wrote: I noticed that on this web page there are some details of changes to the substantial risk regulations applying to esa
in particular it is stated that substantial risk will not apply in certain stances where medication from a general practitioner would assist the person manage their condition. however, I am wondering what happens in the case of a person who is phobic about medication?
I remember that with regards to incapacity benefit, and possibly employment support lands as well, provisions existed whereby a person neglected medical treatment they could be disqualified from benefit unless it could be shown that there were strong grounds such as fear. I am paraphrasing what may be poorly recalled information that I read some time ago but I'm mentioning it be close the possibility that somebody may have a fear of a particular medical treatment, be it surgery or medication, was factored in so that this could not be prejudicial to an individual with such problems. So really, I'm wondering whether this business of medication from a GP, in respect of the substantial risk provisions, is an absolute rule, or whether a person's well founded fear of medication has relevance.
I just wonder if anybody on the forum, moderators etc have any further information about this aspect I can see that decision-makers are going to try and get medical advice from medical services are there any conceivable medications that might make some difference and then use it against any individual who could theoretically receive this medication
thank you
The specific words of the amendment are;
the claimant taking medication to manage the claimant’s condition where such medication has been prescribed for the claimant by a registered medical practitioner treating the claimant.
I am pre-empting any advice that will be made in our amended guides.
In my view there is a clear difference between the amended regulation and the advice being given to Decision Makers.
The amendment is clearly states "where medication has been prescribed", the word "reasonable" is not stated nor I believe, can it be implied from the amendment, however, the advice to Decision Makers includes an example.
Lucy is at risk of potentially fatal anaphylactic shock if she comes into contact with products containing latex, which is a risk at work and in the journey to and from work. There is no suggestion that she satisfies any of the descriptors. The DM determines that the risk could be substantially reduced if Lucy carried an adrenaline auto–injector which has been prescribed for her, and a medical alert bracelet.
The suggestion in this is that with the reasonable adjustment of her carrying an adrenaline auto–injector and medical alert bracelet, she would no longer meet the criteria. Now obviously if she has been prescribed these items, then I believe the example would be relevant, however, if for some reason she had not been, then I do not believe that it would.
The problem is that this may only be something that is resolved by an Upper Tribunal Judge.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Pipp
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 128
11 years 3 months ago - 11 years 3 months ago #97618 by Pipp
Replied by Pipp on topic esa substantial risk
But what about substantial risk from medication that causes drowsiness?
Last edit: 11 years 3 months ago by bro58.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- bro58
11 years 3 months ago - 11 years 3 months ago #97621 by bro58
Hi PC,
Adverse side effects as a result of having to take prescribed medication are also relevant here, as with all the aspect of The ESA WCA functional descriptors (activities).
bro58
Replied by bro58 on topic esa substantial risk
PC wrote: But what about substantial risk from medication that causes drowsiness?
Hi PC,
Adverse side effects as a result of having to take prescribed medication are also relevant here, as with all the aspect of The ESA WCA functional descriptors (activities).
bro58
Last edit: 11 years 3 months ago by bro58.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: bro58, Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris