“20. Propriety of behaviour with other people (a) Has unpredictable outbursts of aggressive, disinhibited, 15 15 or bizarre behaviour, being either: (i) sufficient to cause disruption to others on a daily basis; or (ii) of such severity that although occurring less frequently than on a daily basis, no reasonable person would be expected to tolerate them. 9 15 15 15 (b) Has a completely disproportionate reaction to minor events or to criticism to the extent that the claimant has an extreme violent outburst leading to threatening behaviour or actual physical violence. (c) Has unpredictable outbursts of aggressive, disinhibited or bizarre behaviour, sufficient in severity and frequency to cause disruption for the majority of the time. 9 (d) Has a strongly disproportionate reaction to minor events or to criticism, to the extent that the claimant cannot manage overall day to day life when such events or criticism occur. (e) Has unpredictable outbursts of aggressive, disinhibited or bizarre behaviour, sufficient to cause frequent disruption. 6 (f) Frequently demonstrates a moderately disproportionate reaction to minor events or to criticism but not to such an extent that the claimant cannot manage overall day to day life when such events or criticism occur. 0 (g) None of the above apply.”
“Exceptional circumstances 29. – (1) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work as determined in accordance with the limited capability for work assessment is to be treated as having limited capability for work if paragraph (2) applies to the claimant. (2) This paragraph applies if – … (b) The claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement and, by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work.”
“7. Descriptor 20(f) ‘frequently demonstrates a moderately disproportionate reaction to minor events or to criticism but not to such an extent that the person cannot manage overall day to day life when such events or criticism occur’, is intended to reflect difficulties in social behaviour which might be encountered by people with psychotic illness or other conditions such as brain injury that result in lack of insight, as well as the difficulties people with autistic spectrum disorder may have in social behaviour. It is intended to reflect the effects of episodic relapsing conditions such as some types of psychotic illness, as well as conditions resulting in consistently abnormal behaviour. 8. The wording ‘reaction to minor events’ is intended to reflect difficulties that may be encountered by people with autistic spectrum disorder and other conditions in which minor adverse events causes (sic) a moderately disproportionate or significant reaction than might normally be expected. There should be evidence of a disorder of mental function for this descriptor to apply. This may be as a result of a specific mental illness or a condition, whether mental, physical, or sensory resulting in cognitive or intellectual impairment of mental function.”
“ … In order to determine whether there is any health risk at work or in the work place it is necessary to make some assessment of the type of work for which the claimant is suitable. The doctor, the decision-maker and, if there is an appeal, the Tribunal, should be able to elicit sufficient information for that purpose. The extent to which it is necessary for a decision-maker to particularise the nature of the work a claimant might undertake is likely to depend upon the claimant’s background, experience and the type of disease or disablement in question …”
“9. There was, however, no investigation by the tribunal about the claimant’s background to form a view on the range or types of work for which he was both suited as a matter of training or aptitude and which his disabilities did not render him incapable of performing. As a result there was no decision as to whether within that range there was work he could do without the degree of risk to health envisaged by regulation 27(b). In making that assessment the tribunal would have to take into account both the risk to the claimant as a result of his mental health problems and also the limits on the work he could do because of them, including any alcohol dependency he was found to have. 10. Further, the test is not limited to whether there would be a substantial risk to the claimant from any work he may undertake. The test is as to the risk as a result of being found capable of work. If he was found capable of work, he would lose his incapacity benefit, and would very possibly need to seek work and apply for jobseeker’s allowance. That would involve his attending interviews, and going through all the other steps that would be needed to obtain and keep jobseeker’s allowance. In the present economic climate, a claimant who is 62 years old with mental health problems, and who has not worked since the early 1990’s is unlikely to find work quickly and would very possibly never find it. His GP’s assessment that it is inconceivable that he would ever be able to earn his living may be right. The tribunal would then have to determine how this change from his being in receipt of incapacity benefit would affect the claimant’s mental health, looking not at some work he may do, but at the effect on his mental health of fruitless and repeated interviews and the possibly hopeless pursuit of jobs until he reached retirement age. These factors were not considered by the tribunal, and indeed they did not elicit the information necessary to enable them to be considered, such as whether he had in fact applied for jobseeker’s allowance and if not, how he was coping or would cope.”