PIP doctors evidence

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''

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 ,

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.

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.