Reply from DWP decision maker !!!!!

After providing supporting evidence from my Doctor, i was alittle confused by the DWP decision makers reply.
He submits that although a GP may have knowledge of a person over a period of time and have access to full medical records, knowledge about all disabling conditions, details of medication and be able to give a prognosis of there condition, they do not have training/expertise in assessing functional effects or expertise in fitness for work and would be acting as the customer's advocate.
On the other hand the Attos approved medical services doctor/nurse is specilly trained in disabillity assessment and are aware of benefit legislation therefore gives a objective opinion surpported by clinical examination-the thing is i never got examined - So the question is will the tribunal take any notice what my Doctor has writen? Thankyou for your time and any replys
Rgds: Neil

Hi Neil,

The short answer is 'Yes',the tribunal will take note of any medical evidence put before them and make their own mind up about which they think is the most reliable.

What you've had from the DWP sounds like a computer generated standard response.

Steve

neil wrote:

After providing supporting evidence from my Doctor, i was alittle confused by the DWP decision makers reply.
He submits that although a GP may have knowledge of a person over a period of time and have access to full medical records, knowledge about all disabling conditions, details of medication and be able to give a prognosis of there condition, they do not have training/expertise in assessing functional effects or expertise in fitness for work and would be acting as the customer's advocate.
On the other hand the Attos approved medical services doctor/nurse is specilly trained in disabillity assessment and are aware of benefit legislation therefore gives a objective opinion surpported by clinical examination-the thing is i never got examined - So the question is will the tribunal take any notice what my Doctor has writen? Thankyou for your time and any replys
Rgds: Neil

Neil,

Your first paragraph is what ATOS say in their handbook, which is basically that G.P.'s/consultants are there to diagnose and treat your conditions, and have little knowledge, of the limitations caused by such conditions, and a patients ability to do some sort of work.

Whereas their HCP's who could be an ex nurse, or physiotherapist etc, have been trained by ATOS in disability analysis, even though this training could only involve 5 days training.

The DM must take all medical evidence into account, and then make his decision on that, whether it is "most probable" that your conditions, which you prove that you suffer from with your medical evidence, would then result in the resulting limitations for work, or work related activity.

So use your medical evidence to challenge the decision, the more evidence, the more probability of the limitations.

The DM can say that he can choose to use any medical evidence, such as the ATOS report, and ignore other evidence such as from your G.P. However the tribunal will take into account all evidence put in front of them, as the DM is now supposed to do since the Harrington Review, therefore not your "rubberstamping" the ATOS assessment.

Hope this adds some clarity.

neil wrote:

After providing supporting evidence from my Doctor, i was alittle confused by the DWP decision makers reply.
He submits that although a GP may have knowledge of a person over a period of time and have access to full medical records, knowledge about all disabling conditions, details of medication and be able to give a prognosis of there condition, they do not have training/expertise in assessing functional effects or expertise in fitness for work and would be acting as the customer's advocate.
On the other hand the Attos approved medical services doctor/nurse is specilly trained in disabillity assessment and are aware of benefit legislation therefore gives a objective opinion surpported by clinical examination-the thing is i never got examined - So the question is will the tribunal take any notice what my Doctor has writen? Thankyou for your time and any replys
Rgds: Neil

As Steve has said what you have received from the DWP decision maker is a standard formulaic computer-generated response.

I have to say however in my opinion this response is utter claptrap, and furthermore it is not just my opinion but it has often been echoed by Social Security Commissioners and subsequently Upper Tribunal Judges, that the use of such phrases should be deprecated.

A claimant's GP does have the power to decide on his/her patient's fitness for work, because this is the purpose of sick notes (not the ridiculous so-called fit notes which I detest) and to suggest otherwise is downright disingenuous towards the GP. The DWP accept the sick note to support a claim to ESA on which the GP gives an opinion that the patient is unfit for work for either an open-ended or a specified period. Accordingly they are accepting the GP's professional judgement. and in most cases will readily make an award of ESA subject to the conditions of entitlement being satisfied.

The ESA decision maker cannot then have it both ways and following the medical assessment dismiss the GP's opinion as irrelevant, in favour of a government-funded approved disability analyst (ADA). A claimant's GP will generally be as disinterested in the outcome of the ESA claim, probably more so than the ADA who will be under pressure to cut the numbers on sickness benefits from the powers that be. Moreover, the GP is no more or less independent than the ADA.

There is also the likelihood that a claimant's GP may have been treating a medical condition for many years, and will have infinitely more knowledge of its effects on the patient than an ADA who makes a snapshot non-medical decision based on a computer programme which is inherently mechanistic. However, what I find even more astonishing and altogether insulting, is the fact that the DWP instruct a GP not issue any more sick notes, which in my view seriously calls into account their professional opinion.

If the DWP wish to defend their decision by making use of stock formulaic phrases/paragraphs as you have detailed, this obviously begs the question as to why they accepted the GP's medical statement at the outset to award ESA, and will again accept further medical statements in the event of an appeal against the adverse ESA decision, but won't accept the statement in the interim period between the date of the decision and the date of the appeal?

Clearly the DWP wish to have their bread buttered on both sides and on the crusts, by adopting such an absurd stance in making a decision on an ESA claim in these circumstances!

Sorry, but it has not been possible to publish your post.

See FAQs.

Crazydiamond wrote:

neil wrote:

After providing supporting evidence from my Doctor, i was alittle confused by the DWP decision makers reply.
He submits that although a GP may have knowledge of a person over a period of time and have access to full medical records, knowledge about all disabling conditions, details of medication and be able to give a prognosis of there condition, they do not have training/expertise in assessing functional effects or expertise in fitness for work and would be acting as the customer's advocate.
On the other hand the Attos approved medical services doctor/nurse is specilly trained in disabillity assessment and are aware of benefit legislation therefore gives a objective opinion surpported by clinical examination-the thing is i never got examined - So the question is will the tribunal take any notice what my Doctor has writen? Thankyou for your time and any replys
Rgds: Neil

As Steve has said what you have received from the DWP decision maker is a standard formulaic computer-generated response.

I have to say however in my opinion this response is utter claptrap, and furthermore it is not just my opinion but it has often been echoed by Social Security Commissioners and subsequently Upper Tribunal Judges, that the use of such phrases should be deprecated.

A claimant's GP does have the power to decide on his/her patient's fitness for work, because this is the purpose of sick notes (not the ridiculous so-called fit notes which I detest) and to suggest otherwise is downright disingenuous towards the GP. The DWP accept the sick note to support a claim to ESA on which the GP gives an opinion that the patient is unfit for work for either an open-ended or a specified period. Accordingly they are accepting the GP's professional judgement. and in most cases will readily make an award of ESA subject to the conditions of entitlement being satisfied.

The ESA decision maker cannot then have it both ways and following the medical assessment dismiss the GP's opinion as irrelevant, in favour of a government-funded approved disability analyst (ADA). A claimant's GP will generally be as disinterested in the outcome of the ESA claim, probably more so than the ADA who will be under pressure to cut the numbers on sickness benefits from the powers that be. Moreover, the GP is no more or less independent than the ADA.

There is also the likelihood that a claimant's GP may have been treating a medical condition for many years, and will have infinitely more knowledge of its effects on the patient than an ADA who makes a snapshot non-medical decision based on a computer programme which is inherently mechanistic. However, what I find even more astonishing and altogether insulting, is the fact that the DWP instruct a GP not issue any more sick notes, which in my view seriously calls into account their professional opinion.

If the DWP wish to defend their decision by making use of stock formulaic phrases/paragraphs as you have detailed, this obviously begs the question as to why they accepted the GP's medical statement at the outset to award ESA, and will again accept further medical statements in the event of an appeal against the adverse ESA decision, but won't accept the statement in the interim period between the date of the decision and the date of the appeal?

Clearly the DWP wish to have their bread buttered on both sides and on the crusts, by adopting such an absurd stance in making a decision on an ESA claim in these circumstances!

CD,

A very eloquent rant and indeed absolutely true, especially your last paragraph.

As you know the DM's have no medical qualifications, and it would appear that they have had their powers dimished in recent times.

However, in the last evidence session to The Works and Pensions Commitee enquiry on migration from IB to ESA in the beginning of June,the Exec from the DWP stated that DM's were receiving fresh training in the decision making process, and they must take the claiments evidence from other medical sources into account, and not just the ATOS assessment.

This being in line with the Harrington Review.

I'm sure that you already know this, but maybe Neil (OP) could use this as part of his appeal, and as they reconsider anyway on appeal, they may reverse the decision.

Also he could complain to the DWP citing this DM retraining and Harrington issue, it may help.

If failing here it is then on to the lengthy wait for a Tribunal Hearing, along with the thousands of others suffering such injustice.

Neil sorry for the typo in my earlier post should have read "just rubberstamping"

cheers

bro58