- Posts: 51061
× Members
Mental Health - IS to ESA migration query
- LocalPeople
- Topic Author
11 years 2 weeks ago - 11 years 2 weeks ago #101935 by LocalPeople
Mental Health - IS to ESA migration query was created by LocalPeople
I am helping someone complete the ESA50 (01/13) using the brilliantly updated guides here. However, I can't find any advice regarding whether it is advisable or not to expand on the therapies received, ongoing or pending for certain conditions. ie: CBT, psychology, mindfulness, wellness recovery groups etc. for conditions of clinical depression, OCD and anxiety disorder (the form does not seem much interested in these things unless they are medications or hospital treatments).
On one hand it seems that participation in those activities may be deemed evidence of being 'capable of work related activity', whereas for the time being, the support group is the aim. But at the same time they are evidence of the conditions being taken seriously medically, and of the individual working for much of their time to control the conditions and attempt to move forward. Also, if such things have evolved over time, as part of a care plan under a CPN, perhaps these things should be highlighted as necessary to ongoing wellness, so that the individual can't be forced to undertake activity that would contradict or preclude continuing with these treatments which are within and surrounding the mental health system?
Also, the exceptional circumstances rule seems valid here, due to the potential for substantial harm to the individual's mental heath if the developed care plan is disrupted.
On one hand it seems that participation in those activities may be deemed evidence of being 'capable of work related activity', whereas for the time being, the support group is the aim. But at the same time they are evidence of the conditions being taken seriously medically, and of the individual working for much of their time to control the conditions and attempt to move forward. Also, if such things have evolved over time, as part of a care plan under a CPN, perhaps these things should be highlighted as necessary to ongoing wellness, so that the individual can't be forced to undertake activity that would contradict or preclude continuing with these treatments which are within and surrounding the mental health system?
Also, the exceptional circumstances rule seems valid here, due to the potential for substantial harm to the individual's mental heath if the developed care plan is disrupted.
Last edit: 11 years 2 weeks ago by . Reason: Tick.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
11 years 2 weeks ago #101947 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Mental Health - IS to ESA migration query
LP
There is no reason why you should not mention these treatments, as you say, they do indicate that there is a problem in the first place, and the fact that they are on-going also indicative that they have not currently resulted in a "cure".
I am less convinced, that in themselves, they are evidence that work or Work Related Activity is precluded, if only on the basis that I assume that the claimant is not receiving these treatments for 35 hours a week, and you should certainly expect the claim that "working is good for you" to be considered.
So you would need to show that their working or participating in WRA would be harmful to them or someone else. This would be covered under the ESA Exceptional Circumstances, Regulations 29 and 35, but these do require the claimant to provide medical evidence to support their assertions that they meet these Regs., it is not sufficient to simply state this.
Gordon
There is no reason why you should not mention these treatments, as you say, they do indicate that there is a problem in the first place, and the fact that they are on-going also indicative that they have not currently resulted in a "cure".
I am less convinced, that in themselves, they are evidence that work or Work Related Activity is precluded, if only on the basis that I assume that the claimant is not receiving these treatments for 35 hours a week, and you should certainly expect the claim that "working is good for you" to be considered.
So you would need to show that their working or participating in WRA would be harmful to them or someone else. This would be covered under the ESA Exceptional Circumstances, Regulations 29 and 35, but these do require the claimant to provide medical evidence to support their assertions that they meet these Regs., it is not sufficient to simply state this.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: LocalPeople
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: , Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris