In Cooke v. Secretary of State for Social Security, the decision being contested is based on the adjudication officer's decision to withdraw the disability living allowance of the claimant since July of 1998. Specifically, the dispute is with regards to the change of the initial rate care component from the highest in 1997 to the lowest in July of 1998.
The applicant applied for a review on her case in 1998 based on s30 (1) of the 1992 Act. As stated earlier, she acquired the lowest care rate. Consequently, she appealed to the Disability Appeal Tribunal. However, the said body upheld the decision of the adjudication officer stating that she was not able to satisfy the requirements needed to qualify for the higher rate of mobility component that she applied for. This is similarly the case in the Deputy Social Security Commissioner stating that the "evidence that the circumstances were not as they had previously been accepted to be."
The Court of Appeal similarly upheld the decisions of the lower courts. Hale LJ affirmed that the Court is supposed to afford special value to the decision of the Commissioner for the reason of his superior experience in, and comprehension of, the procedural and compound concerns that takes place under social security legislation. Moreover, the judge indicated Chamberlain with support, approving that even though production of a new medical statement or of a new medical estimation could confirm a material change of events, it did not in itself suffice to make up such an alteration, devoid of which the authority to evaluate did not subsist.