burden of proof

Am I correct in thinking that when it comes to demonstrating a substantial risk to the claimant or another person would exist if they were found fit for work related activity, that this is a burden of proof for the claimant, and it would be the test of 'balance of probabilities' which means more likely than not. ??

XFACTOR wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when it comes to demonstrating a substantial risk to the claimant or another person would exist if they were found fit for work related activity, that this is a burden of proof for the claimant, and it would be the test of 'balance of probabilities' which means more likely than not. ??

Hi XF,

If you are referring to Exceptional Circumstances Rules, as in Reg 29 for WRAG and Reg 35 for SG, then the answer is yes.

bro58

thank you

I have a query on the exceptional circumstances regulations. I am trying to work out if I am covered by them as my consultant has written that I am at significant risk of poor outcome i.e. fatality. Just wondering how much difference in terms of risk there is from significant to substantial risk.

Liz944 wrote:

I have a query on the exceptional circumstances regulations. I am trying to work out if I am covered by them as my consultant has written that I am at significant risk of poor outcome i.e. fatality. Just wondering how much difference in terms of risk there is from significant to substantial risk.

Hi L944,

There is no absolute definition of "Substantial Risk" have a look at 42185 onwards of The DM Guide here :

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch42.pdf

If possible, try not to rely on qualifying under Exceptional Circumstances alone, use it as a back up, if you can.

bro58

Thanks for the link I will look it up. Luckily not relying entirely on the exceptional circumstances as I should meet the criteria for mobilising and a couple of other descriptors.