- Posts: 1
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
- PIP Appeal. Need for large handled cutlery denied because I can use walking stic
× Members
PIP Appeal. Need for large handled cutlery denied because I can use walking stic
- BenMM
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
2 days 8 hours ago #313466 by BenMM
PIP Appeal. Need for large handled cutlery denied because I can use walking stic was created by BenMM
Hi,
I'm preparing for my PIP appeal hearing. At my review I was downgraded from enhanced to standard daily living, falling short by 1 point. They continued the award of enhanced mobility.
One of the reasons they seem to have used for reducing my score on Eating and Drinking from 2 to 0 . Is that they say because I can use a walking stick, then I don't need large handled cutlery for reasons of grip, pain muscle spasms. They've already acknowledged that I cannot walk far by awarding me 12 points for mobility - can't move more than 20m. Are there any arguments you can suggest to help me refute this?
Thanks
BenMM
I'm preparing for my PIP appeal hearing. At my review I was downgraded from enhanced to standard daily living, falling short by 1 point. They continued the award of enhanced mobility.
One of the reasons they seem to have used for reducing my score on Eating and Drinking from 2 to 0 . Is that they say because I can use a walking stick, then I don't need large handled cutlery for reasons of grip, pain muscle spasms. They've already acknowledged that I cannot walk far by awarding me 12 points for mobility - can't move more than 20m. Are there any arguments you can suggest to help me refute this?
Thanks
BenMM
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 10252
3 hours 15 minutes ago #313492 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic PIP Appeal. Need for large handled cutlery denied because I can use walking stic
Hi BenMM
The assessor has made an unsupported causal inference — that ability in one task (using a walking stick) demonstrates ability in a functionally different task (using standard cutlery). This is not a valid comparison
Key Arguments
1. A walking stick requires a fundamentally different grip
Using a walking stick involves a large-diameter, cylindrical grip with a downward pressing motion, distributing weight through the palm and wrist. Using standard cutlery requires a precision pinch grip — fine motor control using the fingertips, sustained over repeated movements. These are biomechanically distinct actions. Competence in one does not imply competence in the other.
2. The stick assists you — it doesn't demonstrate strength
A walking stick is a compensatory aid and was given to you because you cannot manage without it. Using it actually demonstrates your reduced functional capacity, not enhanced ability. By the assessor's logic, needing a walking stick at all should be evidence of limitation, not capability.
3. Pain and muscle spasms are contextual and variable
Your difficulties with cutlery may relate to:
Pain on precision grip (e.g. from arthritis, fibromyalgia, nerve damage - I only givew examples - you didn't actually say what it is), which is not engaged when using a stick
Muscle spasms that may be triggered by specific movements, durations, or angles — none of which are shared between the two tasks
Fatigue — using a stick for mobility may actually worsen hand fatigue by the time the person sits to eat
4. The frequency and duration of use differ significantly
A walking stick may be used in short bursts with rests. Eating requires sustained fine motor activity — repeatedly gripping, lifting, cutting, and manoeuvring — over a meal. The endurance demands are entirely different.
5. Medical evidence should override functional assumption
You have a diagnosis. The medical basis for needing adapted equipment should be taken from clinical evidence, not inferred from an unrelated assumption on the part of the assessor. (especially if this was a phone or paper-based assessment and they never saw you)
I know it sounds a bit wordy, but I hope you get what I'm saying.
BIS
The assessor has made an unsupported causal inference — that ability in one task (using a walking stick) demonstrates ability in a functionally different task (using standard cutlery). This is not a valid comparison
Key Arguments
1. A walking stick requires a fundamentally different grip
Using a walking stick involves a large-diameter, cylindrical grip with a downward pressing motion, distributing weight through the palm and wrist. Using standard cutlery requires a precision pinch grip — fine motor control using the fingertips, sustained over repeated movements. These are biomechanically distinct actions. Competence in one does not imply competence in the other.
2. The stick assists you — it doesn't demonstrate strength
A walking stick is a compensatory aid and was given to you because you cannot manage without it. Using it actually demonstrates your reduced functional capacity, not enhanced ability. By the assessor's logic, needing a walking stick at all should be evidence of limitation, not capability.
3. Pain and muscle spasms are contextual and variable
Your difficulties with cutlery may relate to:
Pain on precision grip (e.g. from arthritis, fibromyalgia, nerve damage - I only givew examples - you didn't actually say what it is), which is not engaged when using a stick
Muscle spasms that may be triggered by specific movements, durations, or angles — none of which are shared between the two tasks
Fatigue — using a stick for mobility may actually worsen hand fatigue by the time the person sits to eat
4. The frequency and duration of use differ significantly
A walking stick may be used in short bursts with rests. Eating requires sustained fine motor activity — repeatedly gripping, lifting, cutting, and manoeuvring — over a meal. The endurance demands are entirely different.
5. Medical evidence should override functional assumption
You have a diagnosis. The medical basis for needing adapted equipment should be taken from clinical evidence, not inferred from an unrelated assumption on the part of the assessor. (especially if this was a phone or paper-based assessment and they never saw you)
I know it sounds a bit wordy, but I hope you get what I'm saying.
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: latetrain, BIS, Catherine12345, Chris, David, Forum Moderator