New PSS

Hi, was looking at the link Bro put up about the new PSS. It suggests that;

The PSS should refer to all of the claimant’s health conditions, and consider the combined impact where multiple conditions are present.

Does anyone know if this is a new recomendation? ie; not taken into account previously by the decision maker?

If so I would like to use this towards an appeal as it is very pertinent to me.

Best wishes,
Rachel

Fedup wrote:

Hi, was looking at the link Bro put up about the new PSS. It suggests that;

The PSS should refer to all of the claimant’s health conditions, and consider the combined impact where multiple conditions are present.

Does anyone know if this is a new recomendation? ie; not taken into account previously by the decision maker?

If so I would like to use this towards an appeal as it is very pertinent to me.

Best wishes,
Rachel

Hi Rachel,

The new PSS only came into being as from June this year, as a result of The Harrington Review.

It is used by the HCP to justify any recommendations, and anything that contradicts the claimants evidence given at the face to face, or in their ESA50.

Therefore there would not be an ESA85S, on any assessments done before June this year.

One of the other Mods may have more info to add to this.

cheers

bro58

bro58 wrote:

Fedup wrote:

Hi, was looking at the link Bro put up about the new PSS. It suggests that;

The PSS should refer to all of the claimant’s health conditions, and consider the combined impact where multiple conditions are present.

Does anyone know if this is a new recomendation? ie; not taken into account previously by the decision maker?

If so I would like to use this towards an appeal as it is very pertinent to me.

Best wishes,
Rachel

Hi Rachel,

The new PSS only came into being as from June this year, as a result of The Harrington Review.

It is used by the HCP to justify any recommendations, and anything that contradicts the claimants evidence given at the face to face, or in their ESA50.

Therefore there would not be an ESA85S, on any assessments done before June this year.

One of the other Mods may have more info to add to this.

cheers

bro58

The link to the Doc is here :

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-17-11.pdf

For any other members that may wish to read it.

cheers

bro58

Hi Bro, sorry for my confusing language, I meant for future appeals.

I have a WCA coming up and I will no doubt fail it as I did last time.

Although I have poor mental health and anxiety etc, I would like to argue that I fulfill descriptors because a combination of ALL my illnesses and disabilities.

I was wondering if that statement may be useful to me or anyone else?

For example, if I only had ME, I may be able to work but because I have ME, depression, anxiety, migraines etc .........I can't work.

Does that make sense or am I missing the point?

Sorry!
Rachel

Fedup wrote:

Hi Bro, sorry for my confusing language, I meant for future appeals.

I have a WCA coming up and I will no doubt fail it as I did last time.

Although I have poor mental health and anxiety etc, I would like to argue that I fulfill descriptors because a combination of ALL my illnesses and disabilities.

I was wondering if that statement may be useful to me or anyone else?

For example, if I only had ME, I may be able to work but because I have ME, depression, anxiety, migraines etc .........I can't work.

Does that make sense or am I missing the point?

Sorry!
Rachel

Yes Rachel,

It does make sense, it's seems a relevant argument to me, with regard to the limitations resulting from multiple conditions, and the same from one condition only.

I would certainly consider using it if you need to, hopefully this will not be the case.

cheers

bro58

bro58 wrote:

Fedup wrote:

Hi Bro, sorry for my confusing language, I meant for future appeals.

I have a WCA coming up and I will no doubt fail it as I did last time.

Although I have poor mental health and anxiety etc, I would like to argue that I fulfill descriptors because a combination of ALL my illnesses and disabilities.

I was wondering if that statement may be useful to me or anyone else?

For example, if I only had ME, I may be able to work but because I have ME, depression, anxiety, migraines etc .........I can't work.

Does that make sense or am I missing the point?

Sorry!
Rachel

Yes Rachel,

It does make sense, it's seems a relevant argument to me, with regard to the limitations resulting from multiple conditions, and the same from one condition only.

I would certainly consider using it if you need to, hopefully this will not be the case.

cheers

bro58

As an add-on, in simple terms, the limitations suffered due to multiple mild or moderate conditions, could be equal, or worse than the same suffered from one severe condition.

Is that what you are going to contend in your proposed argument, if needed.

Cheers

bro58