PIP review assessment and heart attack

I am entitled to PIP lower component of daily living. I had a PIP review assessment in April 2018. The HA’s report removed pre-existing points and the DM replicated that, which removed entitlement to daily living. But I was awarded lower component of mobility which I didn’t have before (10 points).

Before the assessment day, I wrote in advance (twice) to the health assessor contractor (I have excluded saying its name), informing it that I was suffering from chest pains, down both arms and in my lower jaw, and shortness of breathe, that I was in distress, and asked if it was really necessary that the assessment should go ahead at that time. I received an auto response email saying they would be in touch within 2 working days. Nothing happened. I wrote again after 5 days, and didn’t receive a reply. I didn’t know what to expect from the health contractor, whether they ignore letters etc., so after two attempts, I resigned myself to having to go to the then, imminent appointment, which was a stressful thing to do, prepare and be having those symptoms.

On the day of and at the assessment, I had chest pain, down both arms, in my lower jaw, had shortness of breath even at rest, and also when I walked in stages, having to stop in pain and breathless. I told the HA I’d been having the symptoms before as well as that day and that I was worried it was angina. Without examining me, the HA said he didn’t think it was angina and that he was a paramedic, so I continued with the assessment, stressed (though he described me as calm, relaxed and well kempt – none were true). I’d also not been well since January, hospitalised with pneumonia. After the assessment, my chest pain and shortness of breath continued and ten days later, I was admitted to A&E and diagnosed with a heart attack, which required surgical intervention. In hindsight, I needed medical support much earlier. The heart attack has had a major impact on me physically and mentally. I have even more medications than I was originally on and a new set of circumstances.

I was reading something about the application of law in mobility activities, moving around descriptor 2. Before my heart attack, from the PIP review assessment, I was given descriptor 2d, “Can stand and then move using an aid or appliance more than 20m but no more than 50m”. But I noticed somewhere in literature, possibly where the tribunals discuss and apply a meaning to a legal definition, which has led me to asking the views of people here who know the PIP law.

Q1: If the descriptor was for example, 2e “Can stand and then move around more than 1m but no more than 20m, either aided or unaided”, does that mean they can do it without pain, fatigue and shortness of breath?

Q2: But what if the claimant had pain, fatigue and shortness of breath (say all of those symptoms for the full impact it could have on a person attempting the activity) whilst doing the activity of descriptor 2e; does that mean the law says the person must be treated as if they cannot do the activity at all and therefore descriptor 2f would apply? i.e. they “Cannot, either aided or unaided, (i) stand, or (ii) move more than 1m”?

Prior to the heart attack, I was preparing a request for mandatory reconsideration of the loss of daily living component from a review because I was only short of 2 points, and, I already previously had more than just those two points. I had previously demonstrated I used aids and appliances to monitor medication and condition (which still applies), yet the point for that was removed, without explanation other than can manage medication well using aids and appliances!?

On the activity of reading, my eyesight has worsened in 4 years, and I already had two points for the descriptor. But in April, the HA removed those two points, even though I demonstrated I used aids and appliances (in addition to spectacles) to help me carry out the activity (inc magnifying glasses, pen microscope, phone camera used to photograph and enlarge). I also had some other points removed that I originally had before, though, my conditions with time, have worsened. I couldn’t understand removal of points when demonstrating compliance with the descriptors.

Post heart attack. I need time for rest, but have fallen into the DWP’s machinery. It’s enormously time consuming and tiring. I can’t cope with it. Soon after I had sent off the review forms and documents in December 2017, I got pneumonia in January and was very ill. Part way through that, I started to suffer from (looking back) what were angina symptoms, which culminated in a heart attack just after the health assessment review.

Everything relating to the DM’s decision, was based on before I had a heart attack, although unknown to me, I was suffering angina symptoms. I have not even started a change of circumstances document. The DWP said just do a mandatory reconsideration first (not about the heart attack), which may get the extra points – and if it was successful, they said I wouldn’t need to submit anything about the heart attack.

Depending on what the law says how a person should be treated if they can do an activity but have pain, fatigue and shortness of breath doing it, perhaps I should ask the DWP to consider impact of heart attack anyway. It’s more work which is difficult for me to cope with.
It’s probable I had a heart attack on the morning of the review assessment. It was a stressful time leading up to the assessment, the contractor didn’t respond to my request to postpone the assessment, symptoms continued, the assessment went ahead, the HA failed to recognise an imminent heart attack.

I told the DWP of my heart attack and I asked for a reasonable adjustment of extra time to submit my evidence and request for mandatory reconsideration, which they granted. However, before I could submit that evidence, the DWP went ahead and did the mandatory reconsideration in the absence of my evidence. But in the mandatory reconsideration report, it incorrectly stated it was based on the further evidence I had submitted (I hadn’t submitted it, I was preparing it). The DWP had ignored or (because they don’t speak to each other) more likely - forgotten about the reasonable adjustment of extra time granted. But it doesn’t explain why their mandatory reconsideration report said it was based on further evidence I had submitted.

Even more concerning is the following. I ask what I should do about it. In the first Decision Maker’s report on the premature mandatory reconsideration, it contained factually incorrect errors, based on mistakes by the health assessor, which were repeated without question robotically by the DWP’s Decision Maker, i.e. the Decision Maker obviously didn’t check the medical evidence I provided which would have otherwise made it impossible for him to make the medical statements he made in his report. It actually should have made it impossible for the health assessor to make the same mistake, but he did. In the second Decision Maker’s report (on the premature mandatory reconsideration), he makes the same identical mistakes, robotically. This proves that not one, but two Decision Makers have not checked the same medical evidence submitted and mistakes just got carried forward. Had this been an audit test of Decision Makers checking medical evidence, they would have failed the test.
When important mistakes are made, then carried forward blindly without question or scrutiny, it can have detrimental impact on decisions.

Thank you Gordon.
After I told the DWP that they had done a MR without my evidence although they had given extra time to submit it, but in the meantime, they went ahead with an MR, their response was initially, they can't do another MR but you may be should go to tribunal rather than have a Recon. Then changed their mind and said, we'll have to reconsider the Recon, and asked me to submit my evidence as soon as possible. It sounds they are willing to take it on board. But when I submit, depending on who gets it, that might change, or they genuinely reconsider the Recon because it was done in their error for not abiding by the agreement they made earlier.

Yes, I understand the MR would only consider the aspects that pre-date the heart attack, so heart attack issues are additional and form a separate path.