Doctors support

XFACTOR wrote:

especially at tribunal level. It needs to specify the condition and describe your GP's understanding of your difficulties, as well as prognosis. Eg. If no further treatment is available, or likely to be helpful, or the condition is unlikely to improve, then it should say so.

Seek advice locally from CAB or other agency

My last IB50 some years ago I had to see the doctor and he filled in a form I had to send off with the paperwork he only wrote a couple of words on it, but it was priceless I had it copied and framed I( even sent a copy with my DLA review when they get round to moving me to esa will send a copy even if I have to send up to date paperwork

Well come on Dave dont keep us in suspense, what were the doctors 2 words, or cant you say

Don't worry if they're naughty words - we won't be able to approve them for publication but the moderators can enjoy them.

Survivor wrote:

Don't worry if they're naughty words - we won't be able to approve them for publication but the moderators can enjoy them.

you lot have rude minds its us lot that write the rude stuff he just wrote..on the form

poor prognosis all over it went into NO detail at all based on that without medical they renewed my IB for 5 years, that was first request for info in 14 years .... 2 years into this 5 year term I became exempt IB forms as I had lost sight (something new)

having not been bothered by them for years I was un aware of the problems people have with ib claims and needing medicals or lots of medical reports I mean I have plenty of reports visit loads of hospitals but they never asked for them, and if I had been a member of this forum back then seeing how he filled in the form would have caused a bit of a panic as its not like he gave them much to work with

Gordon wrote:

fedupn45 wrote:

If my Doctor is outraged at the Decision Makers decision, and says that he will put a strong letter forward to support my appeal, will this have any weight in my appeal? He was shocked and appauled that they consider me fit for work when he sees me on a regular basis.

It will really depend on how it is worded.

The DWP and ATOS tend to depreciate your GP statements on the basis that the GP is primarily concerned with what you cannot do, whereas the ESA assessment looks at what you can do. Also ESA is based on very specific assessment criteria, which most GPs do not refer to.

So if your GP just says that you are not fit for work, then it will be considered, but you should not expect it to carry much weight with the Tribunal panel.

However, if your GP says, as an example, that you have problems walking and should not be expected to walk more than 50m without significant discomfort or pain, then this would have a lot more wight, as is specifically addresses one of the ESA criteria.

Hope this explains it.

Gordon

The terminology "cannot do" or in terms of the WCA "can do", is something I cannot comprehend.

The concept of ESA was that it would concentrate on what a claimant can do with regard to work, but the only difference now that the Condems have (temporarily) shelved the work-focused health related assessment (WFHRA), is the fact that the WCA has a reduced amount of descriptors which are much more difficult to satisfy. Other than this noticeable modification, the WCA in my view is no different to the previous Incapacity Benefit PCA.

Taking into account that using the PCA which was aligned to what a claimant couldn't do, in my opinion what remained was what a claimant could do. Can anyone therefore please offer an explanation as to why the WCA is any different to the PCA, because apart from this and the previous governments' spin about ESA and all that good that they believe it entails, referring to my comments in the previous paragraph, is there really any actual dissimilarity because if there is, it isn't apparent to me?

Crazydiamond wrote:

Gordon wrote:

fedupn45 wrote:

If my Doctor is outraged at the Decision Makers decision, and says that he will put a strong letter forward to support my appeal, will this have any weight in my appeal? He was shocked and appauled that they consider me fit for work when he sees me on a regular basis.

It will really depend on how it is worded.

The DWP and ATOS tend to depreciate your GP statements on the basis that the GP is primarily concerned with what you cannot do, whereas the ESA assessment looks at what you can do. Also ESA is based on very specific assessment criteria, which most GPs do not refer to.

So if your GP just says that you are not fit for work, then it will be considered, but you should not expect it to carry much weight with the Tribunal panel.

However, if your GP says, as an example, that you have problems walking and should not be expected to walk more than 50m without significant discomfort or pain, then this would have a lot more wight, as is specifically addresses one of the ESA criteria.

Hope this explains it.

Gordon

The terminology "cannot do" or in terms of the WCA "can do", is something I cannot comprehend.

The concept of ESA was that it would concentrate on what a claimant can do with regard to work, but the only difference now that the Condems have (temporarily) shelved the work-focused health related assessment (WFHRA), is the fact that the WCA has a reduced amount of descriptors which are much more difficult to satisfy. Other than this noticeable modification, the WCA in my view is no different to the previous Incapacity Benefit PCA.

Taking into account that using the PCA which was aligned to what a claimant couldn't do, in my opinion what remained was what a claimant could do. Can anyone therefore please offer an explanation as to why the WCA is any different to the PCA, because apart from this and the previous governments' spin about ESA and all that good that they believe it entails, referring to my comments in the previous paragraph, is there really any actual dissimilarity because if there is, it isn't apparent to me?

when a party gets into power they want to change things the motives are to make things better or save money or just because the other party set things up and they want to upset them

in the case of the benefit changes this is all down the mr duncan smith and being dropped on his head as a baby