ESA reassessment waiting period

Roidininki wrote: Gordon re your last paragraph, as the claimant has been told to take antipsychoitic medication daily for the rest of his life it cannot really be assumed that mental health will improve with treatment and their level of disability will reduce as they adapt to their limitations as far as I am able to judge . There can only be a diminuation of florid symptoms called remission . If pushed into intolerable situations the claimanant could relapse despite medication.

I did qualify the paragraph by stating "valid or not".

However, and it seems it is my day to be controversial, I do not think it is an unreasonable assumption if no evidence to the contrary is offered, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that this is the case in regard to your posts.

As example, if someone has mobility problems due to a crumbling hip joint caused by arthritis, and then has a hip replacement, it would be reasonable to assume that there mobility would improve as a result of the operation. The reality is that sometimes there is no improvement, but in the majority of cases there is.

In a similar vein, if the symptoms of a mental health problem are controlled by medication, then it is reasonable to assume an improvement in function, even though the underlying illness has not been cured or removed, clearly, if the symptoms are only minimised or reduced, then this may not be case, but the claimant needs to make this clear.

Gordon

Roidininki wrote: Gordon yes I do see your point in respect of the physically affected that by having a hip replacement one could say one was cured of the problem .
However it can be argued in the case of mental disorders that they are never cured, there is always the underlying disease . A sufferer I think on appealing would need to show that the effects of the medication could be hampering his ability to concentrate for instance in a place of work , maybe endangering himself and others whereas once the hip replacement had been done it would be classed as a cure and irreversible .
I shall leave my point of view there and thankyou for pointing out that which you have.

Whilst medication may reduce/remove a claimants primary symptoms, it is not impossible for it to introduce a set of new symptoms that are a direct result of that treatment and are as bad or even worse in some aspects as the original problem. It would be as equally valid to reference these new symptoms in a claim as the original ones.

However, it is important to remember that it is not the condition that is being considered, but the effects that it has on a claimant in regard the ESA descriptors.

Gordon