Daily Activity 3 UT decision

Hi, First time posting but I'm a long term subscriber. Thanks for all your help over the last decade or so.

So Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LB and MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are discussed in the same parliamentary papers, and the 2017 legislation change covered both of these cases.

The part of the legislation change that was covered by MH, was successfully appealed in RF v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions. But that did not cover LB at all. My understanding is that it refers only to specific lines on the legislation change and doesn't reverse the lines relevant to the LB case.

Could someone confirm this for me? Also is there any ongoing case trying to reverse the legislation changes that are relevant to LB? I am in the process of going through my first PIP application, having appealed and won 2 DLA decisions in the past. If no one is fighting this, I may consider getting in touch with the public law project once I'm done with the PIP process and asking if they will fight it with/for me.

Also, I would like some advice about whether something would be considered a therapy. I am a type 1 diabetic with an insulin pump - this involves a cannula piercing the skin and tubing going to a pump with an insulin reservoir. If there is a problem with the cannula, tubing or insulin reservoir, I am no longer receiving medication, but the only reason this equipment is attached is to provide constant medication.

When I am ill I need help with these things. I would say checking the tubing and sites is monitoring, helping to calculate dosage and administering it is taking medication. But if someone has to help me with an infusion set change (reservoir, tubing or cannula) would this be a treatment? I see UT decisions about feeding tubes and catheter insertion not being considered treatments, because they are covered by other descriptors about taking nutrition and toilet needs. These judgements imply that the applying equipment to the body is a treatment (if its not covered by other descriptors), but I have a feeling there isn’t specific case law and I will potentially have to argue it at appeal.

Thanks in advance for your help

Thanks for your help, I thought that was the case. Part one was relevent because of this, taken from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl...quality-analysis.pdf:

"In the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LB (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0530 (AAC), the UT decided that where a claimant needed supervision, prompting or assistance both to take medication and to monitor a health condition, this should not be considered under descriptor b(ii) (with a score of 1 point), but should instead be considered support to manage therapy (attracting a score of 2, 4, 6 or 8 points, depending on the number of hours supervision, prompting or assistance involved per week, under descriptors c, d, e or f). The UT also held that support to manage medication or monitor a health condition could in certain circumstances also count as support to manage therapy, and could therefore again score 2 or more points depending on the number of hours involved per week, rather than being limited to a score of 1."

I have mental health problems including OCD. When it is bad I need input from others to manage my diabetes, because I get stuck in my obsessive thoughts or rituals - eg being stuck in the bathroom for 3 hours when I should be doing my insulin. Without the legisliation change, I could potentially score more than one point in daily activity 3. With the legislation change, I don't think I can score more points even if infusion set changes counted as treatment, as the time involved doesnt exceed the threshold so I won't gain anything but putting more qork into this question.

Thanks for your input, for now I'm going to move on from this question and focus on the mental health issues in other questions