Login FormClose

Free ESA, PIP and DLA Updates

With over 140,000 subscribers our fortnightly updates bulletin is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Get the facts about what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare.   Get your free benefits updates now.
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password:
Remember me
Members

TOPIC: PIP doctors evidence

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 2 weeks ago #198242

Gordon, For preparing food
Justification for descriptor choice, the HP wrote ; although she reports a restriction in her questionnaire; its medially probable that her angioedema is allergic in cause given her medication history which includes the use of high does of antihistamine and Epi-pen.
What does he mean by the phrase; '' Medially probable''

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 2 weeks ago #198252

muzeyimama

"Media"l means in the middle and "probable" would have it's usual meaning, so I would translate it as meaning 50% probable, although I doubt this was what the assessor intended it to mean as I suspect they were suggestion that it was more probable than not that that the angioedema is allergic in cause.

Gordon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 2 weeks ago #198275

Gordon, I also thought , he meant the chances of my angioedema being caused by allergies is 50% or the probability of my angioedema being caused by allergies is a half. surely if he think there only half chance of the cause. he can not use that to justify descriptor, I think he is just assuming,' he does not know the facts about my condition. I have under gone many investigation and tests no allergies was found to the cause my condition, can I use that to discredit the HP's report? is okay also to send my DLA decision letters with my submission to the Tribunals as evidence ,

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 2 weeks ago #198289

I would have thought that 'medially' was a misprint and should read 'medically'!

The Tribunal Service will get a copy of all documentation relating to this claim, there is no need to send anything again. Don't forget that discrediting the report will not, in itself, get you awarded PIP.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Last Edit: by Mrs Hurtyback.

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 1 week ago #198375

Thank you, Mrs Hurtyback, if it were a misprint, couldn't the HP have noticed it because he kept printing the same word "medially" (six times) for all the descriptor that apply to me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PIP doctors evidence 2 months 1 week ago #198389

muzeyimama wrote: Thank you, Mrs Hurtyback, if it were a misprint, couldn't the HP have noticed it because he kept printing the same word "medially" (six times) for all the descriptor that apply to me.


I did think of a misprint but it's repeated use argued against that, but it could be a copy/paste error.

Gordon
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mrs Hurtyback

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Moderators: bro58GordonMrs HurtybackIzzy1010