ESA85A - are they always formulaic and meaningless

My son, who has paranoid schizophrenia, has been put in the WRAG without an ATOS medical. (Many thanks incidentally for your excellent guides without which we would never have got this far). We think he should be in the support group.
We have asked for an explanation of the reasons for the decision(9 wks ago); put in a data subject access request(7 wks ago); and lodged an appeal (6wks ago). Although we were told reconsideration of his case would be fast tracked (because of him expressing suicidal thoughts when invited for an interview at the Jobcentre) all we have received so far is a copy of his ESA85A.
What I'd like to know from others with experience of these forms is whether it is usual for them to use a standard form of words for the opening of each sentence i.e.
"The available evidence does not suggest that.."
and then list all of the descriptors, physical and mental and the exceptional circumstances, with no distinction being made between descriptors which are totally irrelevant and which we have never suggested would apply eg
"There is no evidence that the client is currently pregnant" - I'm not joking!!
and those for which we felt we had made a strong case for a support group finding e.g.
"The available evidence does not suggest the client cannot engage in any social contact due to difficulty relating to others or to their own significant distress due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder"
Because all the descriptors are dismissed in the same way I can't tell on which ones he may have scored some points. And he must have scored some points or he wouldn't have been awarded ESA at all. For instance it is possible that the nurse concluded that he has some problems with social situations but not to the top level that justifies the support group - but the form doesn't indicate if that is her finding.
I have tried to spot if there are any descriptors missing from the list in case those are the ones where he has scored some points. There are a few gaps but they don't seem to signify anything since the missing indicators include having a notifiable disease(he hasn't) awareness of hazard (not really a problem for him) and going out (which certainly is).

Confusingly for the other descriptor where we felt we'd put forward strong evidence for inclusion in the support group, namely reliably initiating and completing two sequential personal actions, the comment on the form combines two different tests and only partially quotes the key one:
"The available evidence does not suggest the client has a mental disorder or cognitive impairment that would prevent them from learning a simple task or completing at least wto sequential personal actions."
I don't know if this signifies that initiating personal actions has been recognised as an issue or whether it's just a bit of careless drafting!

I guess what I'm asking is whether it is usual for these forms to be so obscure, and whether there is a trick to reading between the lines to understand what they mean. Or is ours a particularly badly written one? I suppose if our ESA85A wasn't completed competently that could work in our favour if it gets to an appeal. The Health Professional who completed it is a registerd nurse but not apparently one with any psychiatric specialst qualifications.
Grateful for any feedback - with apologies for the length of this post but I felt some quotes were necessary to convey the flavour!

Ann M Thomas wrote:

My son, who has paranoid schizophrenia, has been put in the WRAG without an ATOS medical. (Many thanks incidentally for your excellent guides without which we would never have got this far). We think he should be in the support group.
We have asked for an explanation of the reasons for the decision(9 wks ago); put in a data subject access request(7 wks ago); and lodged an appeal (6wks ago). Although we were told reconsideration of his case would be fast tracked (because of him expressing suicidal thoughts when invited for an interview at the Jobcentre) all we have received so far is a copy of his ESA85A.
What I'd like to know from others with experience of these forms is whether it is usual for them to use a standard form of words for the opening of each sentence i.e.
"The available evidence does not suggest that.."
and then list all of the descriptors, physical and mental and the exceptional circumstances, with no distinction being made between descriptors which are totally irrelevant and which we have never suggested would apply eg
"There is no evidence that the client is currently pregnant" - I'm not joking!!
and those for which we felt we had made a strong case for a support group finding e.g.
"The available evidence does not suggest the client cannot engage in any social contact due to difficulty relating to others or to their own significant distress due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder"
Because all the descriptors are dismissed in the same way I can't tell on which ones he may have scored some points. And he must have scored some points or he wouldn't have been awarded ESA at all. For instance it is possible that the nurse concluded that he has some problems with social situations but not to the top level that justifies the support group - but the form doesn't indicate if that is her finding.
I have tried to spot if there are any descriptors missing from the list in case those are the ones where he has scored some points. There are a few gaps but they don't seem to signify anything since the missing indicators include having a notifiable disease(he hasn't) awareness of hazard (not really a problem for him) and going out (which certainly is).

Confusingly for the other descriptor where we felt we'd put forward strong evidence for inclusion in the support group, namely reliably initiating and completing two sequential personal actions, the comment on the form combines two different tests and only partially quotes the key one:
"The available evidence does not suggest the client has a mental disorder or cognitive impairment that would prevent them from learning a simple task or completing at least wto sequential personal actions."
I don't know if this signifies that initiating personal actions has been recognised as an issue or whether it's just a bit of careless drafting!

I guess what I'm asking is whether it is usual for these forms to be so obscure, and whether there is a trick to reading between the lines to understand what they mean. Or is ours a particularly badly written one? I suppose if our ESA85A wasn't completed competently that could work in our favour if it gets to an appeal. The Health Professional who completed it is a registerd nurse but not apparently one with any psychiatric specialst qualifications.
Grateful for any feedback - with apologies for the length of this post but I felt some quotes were necessary to convey the flavour!

Hi AMT,

Apology accepted, please try and keep your posts to a shorter format in future though.

In response to the title of your thread "ESA85A - are they always formulaic and meaningless"

Unfortunately in the majority of cases that we come across with ESA85A's on the forum, the answer is "Yes"

The phrases that you have quoted are seen on most ESA85A, in the main part they are electronically generated by the LiMA software.

Again, it is quite common for the ATOS HCP to be a Nurse, ATOS are supposed to have "Mental Health Champions" who have specific training in mental health issues.

What tends to happen is, once the assessing ATOS HCP considers that the claimant scores at least the 15 points required for WRAG, in that they have Limited Capability for Work, (LCW) and do not qualify for the SG, they tend to go no further.

Therefore many of the ESA85A's are very vague, which can make it most difficult for the claimant.

It may well be that the ESA85A is the only document available, again, most common. There may also be a LT54 form as well.

Have a look at these FAQ's :

ESA medical – what forms to ask for?

ESA Forms

There may also be an : ESA72 Form

We've only been hearing of the ESA72 recently.

Hope this helps.

bro58

bro58 wrote:

Ann M Thomas wrote:

My son, who has paranoid schizophrenia, has been put in the WRAG without an ATOS medical. (Many thanks incidentally for your excellent guides without which we would never have got this far). We think he should be in the support group.
We have asked for an explanation of the reasons for the decision(9 wks ago); put in a data subject access request(7 wks ago); and lodged an appeal (6wks ago). Although we were told reconsideration of his case would be fast tracked (because of him expressing suicidal thoughts when invited for an interview at the Jobcentre) all we have received so far is a copy of his ESA85A.
What I'd like to know from others with experience of these forms is whether it is usual for them to use a standard form of words for the opening of each sentence i.e.
"The available evidence does not suggest that.."
and then list all of the descriptors, physical and mental and the exceptional circumstances, with no distinction being made between descriptors which are totally irrelevant and which we have never suggested would apply eg
"There is no evidence that the client is currently pregnant" - I'm not joking!!
and those for which we felt we had made a strong case for a support group finding e.g.
"The available evidence does not suggest the client cannot engage in any social contact due to difficulty relating to others or to their own significant distress due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder"
Because all the descriptors are dismissed in the same way I can't tell on which ones he may have scored some points. And he must have scored some points or he wouldn't have been awarded ESA at all. For instance it is possible that the nurse concluded that he has some problems with social situations but not to the top level that justifies the support group - but the form doesn't indicate if that is her finding.
I have tried to spot if there are any descriptors missing from the list in case those are the ones where he has scored some points. There are a few gaps but they don't seem to signify anything since the missing indicators include having a notifiable disease(he hasn't) awareness of hazard (not really a problem for him) and going out (which certainly is).

Confusingly for the other descriptor where we felt we'd put forward strong evidence for inclusion in the support group, namely reliably initiating and completing two sequential personal actions, the comment on the form combines two different tests and only partially quotes the key one:
"The available evidence does not suggest the client has a mental disorder or cognitive impairment that would prevent them from learning a simple task or completing at least wto sequential personal actions."
I don't know if this signifies that initiating personal actions has been recognised as an issue or whether it's just a bit of careless drafting!

I guess what I'm asking is whether it is usual for these forms to be so obscure, and whether there is a trick to reading between the lines to understand what they mean. Or is ours a particularly badly written one? I suppose if our ESA85A wasn't completed competently that could work in our favour if it gets to an appeal. The Health Professional who completed it is a registerd nurse but not apparently one with any psychiatric specialst qualifications.
Grateful for any feedback - with apologies for the length of this post but I felt some quotes were necessary to convey the flavour!

Hi AMT,

Apology accepted, please try and keep your posts to a shorter format in future though.

In response to the title of your thread "ESA85A - are they always formulaic and meaningless"

Unfortunately in the majority of cases that we come across with ESA85A's on the forum, the answer is "Yes"

The phrases that you have quoted are seen on most ESA85A, in the main part they are electronically generated by the LiMA software.

Again, it is quite common for the ATOS HCP to be a Nurse, ATOS are supposed to have "Mental Health Champions" who have specific training in mental health issues.

What tends to happen is, once the assessing ATOS HCP considers that the claimant scores at least the 15 points required for WRAG, in that they have Limited Capability for Work, (LCW) and do not qualify for the SG, they tend to go no further.

Therefore many of the ESA85A's are very vague, which can make it most difficult for the claimant.

It may well be that the ESA85A is the only document available, again, most common. There may also be a LT54 form as well.

Have a look at these FAQ's :

ESA medical – what forms to ask for?

ESA Forms

There may also be an : ESA72 Form

We've only been hearing of the ESA72 recently.

Hope this helps.

bro58

Just to add, as the Forum is closed to new posts until 2PM tomorrow, now.

Although it may help to point out any discrepancies in the ESA85A, the important issue is to go into detail of how and why your son qualifies for the SG with respect to the SG descriptors, see :

Qualifying for the Support Group

You could also review our ESA Claims Guides, and The WCA Hadbook, which are all accessible from this link :

ESA Guides

They may well give you a better insight, The WCA Handbook includes guidance given to assessing HCP's.

bro58

bro58
Thank you for your reply. What I'm stumped by is trying to work out how ATOS scored our claim and thus how they decided my son didn't qualify for the support group, or for the exceptional circumstances case that we mounted.
(We've already put all our evidence as to why he does meet the support group/top level score on two of the descriptors (dealing with social situations and completing personal actions) in the ESA50 form - using your excellent guides throughout, providing lots of examples etc. so I don't think there's much more I can do on that front for the time being.) The ESA85A that we've been sent just has a long, long list of descriptors which they claim don't apply. There's nothing to say which descriptors they think do apply - yet there must be some or he wouldn't have got ESA at all.
I've decided we must just wait to hear what the outcome of the reconsideration is and hope we can keep him from thinking suicidally in the meantime.
Can I ask one supplementary question? I've noticed advice on here that the onus is on us to prove exceptional circumstances, whereas it is for DWP to show that their decision re support group/WRAG is correct. Can you explain why the burden of proof is different for exceptional circs?
many thanks, Ann