Advice re planning and following a journey

Hi Waxwing,
Your post deals with how to write about infrequent epileptic fits. The real issue here is safety. There are 4 criteria which apply to all PIP descriptors. All 4 must apply- if not then you can not as a matter of law do the relevant PIP activity, which therefore should allow points. (This is PIP regs 4(2A) and 4(4))
The issue that is relevant is about safety. All activities must be done safely, that basically means without causing harm to the claimant. The leading case about safety says it is not about the how frequent harm might be, but whether there is a risk of substantial harm occurring eg without supervision taking place. Your description of the consequences of a major fit certainly sound like substantial harm is a very real possibility, and hence supervision shoukd be required.. The case is RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP): [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC) ; [2017] AACR 32 - appeals from 3 different claimants were heard together. The 2 first claimants had epilepsy, the first infrequent fits, and the second often had fits.
So, it is effectively a balancing exercise, of infrequency of fits versus likelihood of severe harm. What does the GP say? - does he say that your brother should be supervised at all times? Do you have written evidence? Does your brother have regular (hospital check ups) to monitor his epilepsy, are his medications constantly reviewed? Have his pills always stayed the same? If medications have changed, especially increased this would indicate to me (but as a layperson!!!) that epilepsy is still active and could resurface. Do you know what triggers seizures, again if you have been very diligent in removing triggers then this may also indicate it is correct for you to supervise and hence points can, and should be awarded. Also have there been any occasions where minor fits might have happened but not really been noticed? Eye twitching, or moments of absences etc that could indicate small fits happen - on which basis the possibility of major fits might be less remote than otherwise thought. (So the argument for supervision is much stronger!)
Just as an aside, under DLA, supervision alone across the day could comprise sufficient care needs to allow an award. Under PIP, in order to gain points you would need to show you need supervision under each relevant activity. However, as Gary explained earlier , you can argue supervision for many 'dangerous' activities, eg cooking, eating, dressing - perhaps if you could fall, bathing etc.Whilst the arguments might be very similar ir the same for all activities, do repeat what you say in each box.
Also, think about this- do you need to consider monitoring health condition under descriptor 3. To be honest if your brother needs prompting etc to take his medicine you can score 1 point, but for the sake of completeness, consider whether you have to supervise your brother throughout the day to monitor his health and be aware if any outward signs that a fit might be occurring. (Still only 1 point, but if you are arguing supervision generally, then this is important for continuity.) Also, does your brother's learning difficulties mean that he is unable or not so able to recognise triggers and early onset of seizures etc. This may then suggest a greater need for supervision.
I think there is an argument for supervision for journeys. (Seizures) Think also whether your brother can cope with journeys, and complete these successfully, not just safely, but also to an acceptable standard, within a reasonable time and repeatedly.
I hope this helps.
LL26

Hi Waxwing

You should be able to see all the information now

BIS