Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

Fecha: 05-Jun-2023

CF -v- SSWP (PIP) Appeal no. UA-2024-000104-PIP

CF -v- SSWP (PIP) Appeal no. UA-2024-000104-PIP

NCN: [2024] UKUT 244 (AAC)

compression bandages in PM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 138 (AAC) (CPIP/383/2018). Whether something that is prescribed by a relevant professional is “medication” or “therapy” within the meaning of the regulations will need in each case to be determined by the Tribunal by reference to case law and by reference to the ordinary meaning of the words “medication” and “therapy” as those words are not otherwise defined in the Regulations. In this case, I am content that compression stockings can properly be described as “therapy”, as (with reference to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definitions), the normal meaning of medication relates to treatment with a “medicinal substance” or “drug”, whereas “therapy” refers to “treatment” more generally including by “systems of activities” and by action taken to “alleviate” as well as “cure” symptoms (see further AS v SSWP [2017] AACR 31 at [7] per Judge Bano for consideration of the meaning of “therapy”). It seems to me that the wearing of compression stockings to aid in lymphatic drainage and reduce swelling in that legs falls comfortably within the ordinary meaning of the word “therapy”.

30.

The Tribunal in this case therefore erred in law in regarding the use of compression stockings as not being therapy or medication. The Tribunal needed to consider whether on the evidence the appellant satisfied descriptor “Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes no more than 3.5 hours a week” for the award of two points. In considering that descriptor, the Tribunal needed to be satisfied, having regard to the definition of “manage therapy” in Part 1 of Schedule 1, that a failure to manage the appellant’s compression stocking therapy would be “likely to result in a deterioration in C’s health”.

31.

Secondly, I agree with the Secretary of State that if the compression stockings have been prescribed, so as to fall within the definition of “therapy” under the Regulations, then difficulties with putting them on would fall only to be considered under activity 3 and not also under activity 6. That is for two reasons:

The activity of “dressing” for the purposes of activity 6 has to be considered by reference to the putting on of ‘normal’ clothing as is established by authorities such as Judge Jacobs’ decision in PE v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 309 (AAC), [2016] AAC 10. Prescription compression stockings could not in my judgment reasonably be classified as ‘normal’ clothing under that line of case law; and

Although there is in general no prohibition on the same difficulties giving rise to points in relation to multiple Schedule 1 activities, as a matter of legislative construction a provision which specifically provides for a