@tomas Apparently it was community acquired pneumonia, but aspiration pneumonia is still a risk. He can’t swallow things like rice pudding or porridge now, only completely puréed foods. I think the choking risk, combined with the fact that he can’t call out, and can’t press a button to call for help constitutes a medical need. My main basis for the appeal is that they didn’t bother to look for the information they would have needed to make an informed decision.
Anyway, thank you very much for offering to look at the paperwork, but I’ve filled it all in now, and just want to send it off and have done with it — I have a background in nuclear safety cases & Mr I is a lawyer, so although we’re not fully fluent in medicalese, we know about making cases. As you say, it’s really tough for people who don’t have those skills, or who don’t have representatives who do.
Even if you do, the frontline (“we have tried to make this document as clear and accessible as possible”) document talks about “primary health need” and refers you to a supporting document for further explanation . The supporting document is hundreds of pages long, and the bit that tells you which section to consult has been left as “xxx.” When you find the right section, it says there is no agreed legal definition. Apparently there are a few court cases where the definition has been argued, but basically the whole thing is as clear as mud.
// @kdfrawg