i got phone call 6.30 this evening i have to attend a dhss medical

DjSatansfury

Hello there, just registered

I've recently been to one of these Medicals, for the same reasons as yourself. In my experience, i went there, not knowing what to expect. The medical itself was difficult, as i was asked questions, and had to drag up a bit of history as to why i had depression etc.

Went home, waited for the results. Got them back, in a score chat format, and i've failed the Medical. They've scored me 6 points, and you need a minimum of 10 to continue benefit. I was deeply upset by this, and i admit, i did feel suicidal again, a feeling that i only get when im really upset due to my condition.

So because i've failed, they've now stopped my Income Support. I've had to Appeal the decision (with Jobcentre plus being no help whatsoever) And gone back onto Income Support at a reduced rate (20% loss of money a week, of which i'll never see back) while the appeal process continues.. So im now having to get myself into a little bit more debt to pay my way. The appeal is going to take up to 3 month to sort out, and i've picked the local councils Welfare Rights team to represent me at an Oral tribunal.

The thing that annoys me most, is many things i've said i had a problem with, the doctor at the medical has just blatently ignored, and i've not been scored on it. For example, i often sleep weird hours, my sleeping patterns cycle often. At the moment im going to bed at 7am, and getting up at 7pm. Yet i've scored "No" and 0 points on their question "Does sleep effect your daily routine". I fail to see how it doesnt?

My advice to you is to be prepared. Look at questions on the internet, that they will ask. And try not to give "too much" away that makes you look well. Dont feel as if you're lying, because as i've found they'll do anything to get you to slip up, even if you are genuine, which in my opinion, takes the michael. I realise this isnt "supportive" but it might give you a better idea, incase things dont go your way.

Anyway, good luck :j

hjb123

DjSatansfury wrote:

Hello there, just registered

I've recently been to one of these Medicals, for the same reasons as yourself. In my experience, i went there, not knowing what to expect. The medical itself was difficult, as i was asked questions, and had to drag up a bit of history as to why i had depression etc.

Went home, waited for the results. Got them back, in a score chat format, and i've failed the Medical. They've scored me 6 points, and you need a minimum of 10 to continue benefit. I was deeply upset by this, and i admit, i did feel suicidal again, a feeling that i only get when im really upset due to my condition.

So because i've failed, they've now stopped my Income Support. I've had to Appeal the decision (with Jobcentre plus being no help whatsoever) And gone back onto Income Support at a reduced rate (20% loss of money a week, of which i'll never see back) while the appeal process continues.. So im now having to get myself into a little bit more debt to pay my way. The appeal is going to take up to 3 month to sort out, and i've picked the local councils Welfare Rights team to represent me at an Oral tribunal.

The thing that annoys me most, is many things i've said i had a problem with, the doctor at the medical has just blatently ignored, and i've not been scored on it. For example, i often sleep weird hours, my sleeping patterns cycle often. At the moment im going to bed at 7am, and getting up at 7pm. Yet i've scored "No" and 0 points on their question "Does sleep effect your daily routine". I fail to see how it doesnt?

My advice to you is to be prepared. Look at questions on the internet, that they will ask. And try not to give "too much" away that makes you look well. Dont feel as if you're lying, because as i've found they'll do anything to get you to slip up, even if you are genuine, which in my opinion, takes the michael. I realise this isnt "supportive" but it might give you a better idea, incase things dont go your way.

Anyway, good luck :j

Hi,

Dont suppose you had a medical at a jobcentre in the northwest were you - Id better not say the exact location on here - but the examiner I had sounds just like yours!

I went to my welfare rights service and didnt find them much use to be honest, they werent really that clued up on my condition and I decided to try the local Citizens Advice Bureau and they were brilliant - had a support worker who dealt specifically with my condition and who went through all my notes. He came with me to the appeal tribunal last week and thanks to him, and I have to say without him I dont think I could have got thorugh the appeal I won and will be getting the backdated Incapacity Benefit, I had had it stopped from November til now and was on the reduced rate of income support which is far from enough to survive on!

If you want to know more about the tribunal process while it is fresh in my mind PM me or just ask!

H

DjSatansfury

No this was in the North East.

The Welfare Rights seem pretty clued up to me, just a little busy (which is fair enough)

I can imagine it being difficult if you're on IB, to then get dropped to IS at a reduced rate. My problem is, as im 21 and been in education (up to Higher Last year) i dont have enough N.I. credits apparently to get IB, so im stuck on IS. So the difference is about £20 a month....not too much, but still an awful lot when you've got nothing else.

I've no idea what the tribunal is going to be like, im just hoping they'll be a bit more understanding this time. And this time, im also going to keep anything that could possibly show me up in "bad light" to myself. (At the medical i pointed out i played online game, World of Warcraft. Mainly because it keeps my mind off things i have problems with. Of course the doctor at the medical (who admitted to playing the game himself! as he asked me further about it) has clearly just thought im some lazy dossing scroat who's playing the fiddle. Thats something else to watch for, they'll ask what do you watch on TV etc to try and catch you out i.e. I sleep 10am-10pm but watch Neighbours at six, they'd catch you out )

hjb123

Oh yeah they will try and catch you out any way they can - for instance they put that as I had managed to travel to the medical I was able to cope with changes to daily routine!

And I was neat and tidy so could obviously look after myself okay and take pride in my appearance!

the_blue_angel

DjSatansfury wrote:

Hello there, just registered

I've recently been to one of these Medicals, for the same reasons as yourself. In my experience, i went there, not knowing what to expect. The medical itself was difficult, as i was asked questions, and had to drag up a bit of history as to why i had depression etc.

Went home, waited for the results. Got them back, in a score chat format, and i've failed the Medical. They've scored me 6 points, and you need a minimum of 10 to continue benefit. I was deeply upset by this, and i admit, i did feel suicidal again, a feeling that i only get when im really upset due to my condition.

So because i've failed, they've now stopped my Income Support. I've had to Appeal the decision (with Jobcentre plus being no help whatsoever) And gone back onto Income Support at a reduced rate (20% loss of money a week, of which i'll never see back) while the appeal process continues.. So im now having to get myself into a little bit more debt to pay my way. The appeal is going to take up to 3 month to sort out, and i've picked the local councils Welfare Rights team to represent me at an Oral tribunal.

The thing that annoys me most, is many things i've said i had a problem with, the doctor at the medical has just blatently ignored, and i've not been scored on it. For example, i often sleep weird hours, my sleeping patterns cycle often. At the moment im going to bed at 7am, and getting up at 7pm. Yet i've scored "No" and 0 points on their question "Does sleep effect your daily routine". I fail to see how it doesnt?

My advice to you is to be prepared. Look at questions on the internet, that they will ask. And try not to give "too much" away that makes you look well. Dont feel as if you're lying, because as i've found they'll do anything to get you to slip up, even if you are genuine, which in my opinion, takes the michael. I realise this isnt "supportive" but it might give you a better idea, incase things dont go your way.

Anyway, good luck :j

you mentioned
Look at questions on the internet
where do i find them

hjb123

Hiya,

You can do a google for "questions asked at DWP medical"
one of the results is
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=755

DjSatansfury

the_blue_angel wrote:

you mentioned
Look at questions on the internet
where do i find them

After some looking, i cant find the original test i had used. But i have been able to find the descriptors they use, which are the same i've had in my letter from them.

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/welfr.nsf/a/ifwdescriptorshome

The fact that this is a Newcastle council website is purely coincidental that i come from the North East :P

the_blue_angel

it mentioned alot of questions but how would you reply to the questions to score the maxium amount of points to pass could anyone tell me how they would reply to these questions below thanks guys and girls and how many people have passed these tests who are here on the forums

“What medication are you taking?”
“Do you go to the hospital as an out patient”
“Do you live alone”
“Have you had a partner recently”
“Do you eat in, or out”
“Do you do your shopping by yourself”
He asked have you come with your son/I replied no this is my partner/no comment raised eybrow LOL.
He asked me for my meds after examining them for a while he wrote some stuff down.
How have you got here/how long was your journey/where are you parked.
He then went on to ask me about all the usual stuff like walking/stairs/ cooking ,washing up ect.
He then asked me if I got irritable and short tempared then he turned to my partner and said I think I should ask you this question he was friendly at that point.
He asked me if I was a good cook then once more said to my partner perhaps it would be better if I asked you this question.
He asked me about hobbies and interests I told him I liked spending time with my family grandchildren ect and I liked my computer...he picked up on this and asked what did I do on the computer...I told him it was for on line support groups.
I told him I liked reading he wanted to know exactly what I read.
He asked me if I watched TV , I said a little he then wanted to know exactly what sort of things I watched I told him documentarys he then added his own types of programmes which I said yes or no..he then asked me if I watched films I replyed yes I start to then I fall asleep he smiled and said he did too.
I told him I had results from a back x ray he got them photo copied but never commented on them.
He asked me about shopping where I did it and how.
He asked me if I would be confident going back into a work envoirenment and was I doing any work at the moment.
He asked me if I had ever contenplated suicide.
He asked me 3 times if I had panic attacks each time I said no.

the_blue_angel

171B (1
The All Work Test

171C (1) Where in any case the own occupation test is not applicable, or has ceased to apply, the test applicable is the all work test.

(2) Provision shall be made by regulations -

(a) defining the all work test by reference to the extent of a person's incapacity by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement to perform such activities as may be prescribed, and

(b) as to the manner of assessing whether the all work test is satisfied.

(3) Regulations may provide that where the all work test applies the test shall, if the prescribed conditions are met, be treated as satisfied until the person has been assessed or he falls to be treated as capable of work in accordance with regulations under section 171A(2) or (3) above or section 171E below.

The prescribed conditions may include the condition that it has not previously been determined, within such period as may be prescribed, that the person in questions or is to be treated as capable of work.

THE DESCRIPTORS

Physical Disabilities

This test begins after 196 days of incapacity have been reached or where the claimant does not have the relevant recent connection with work. The test can be found at pages 944 - 950 of Bonner (1997 edition) and pages 810 - 815 of Bonner (1996 edition) for the pre-amended version. Note that this original version will still have effect where the decision was made prior to 6 January 1997. All of these descriptors must be able to be performed with "reasonable regularity". (CIB/13161/96, CIB/14587/96, CI/95(IB)) and without risk to the individuals health (CSIB/12/96).

CIB/14722/96 (Tribunal) considered that dizziness or nausea ???/be analogous to pain and if any activity caused dizziness nausea then this should be considered a equivalent to pain. See R1/62 (SB) where activities that can only be carried out with substantial pain should not be considered. Also note that one disabling condition can score points under different descriptors. In CSIB /13/96 Commissioner J G Mitchell confirmed that a claimant who had scored 12 points on the descriptor 12d also satisfied descriptor 2d because of his poor eyesight. It pays to check whether the claimant's disability causes him trouble in areas other than the one which seems to be of primary concern to him.

1. Walking on level ground with a walking stick or other aid if such aid is normally used:

Any aid that is used must be one which is normally used.. Therefore, tribunals should not relay, for example, on the claimant's ability to walk whilst pushing a shopping trolley.

The test of severe discomfort presumably should tie in with the case law on Disability Living Allowance mobility component)

The following decisions should therefore be taken into account:

CDLA/12653/96 - where the Commissioner holds that only severe discomfort brought on by walking is relevant. This would also be consistent with the Commissioner's approach in CSIB/38/96 where it was held in relation to descriptor 3(c) that "it is only if the sitting itself causes the lack of comfort which requires the individual to move about that activity 3, sitting, comes into play."

Cassinelli v Secretary of State for Social Services - where it was held that "severe discomfort" should not be taken to imply "severe pain" or "severe distress". Breathlessness can constitute "severe discomfort". The comments of Deputy Commissioner Jacobs in CDLA/12551/1996 are also useful in this context.

"6. The tribunal's reasons quoted in paragraph 4 above refer to both severe discomfort and pain. The claimant's representative and the Adjudication Officer have put forward different views on which is the lesser and on whether the Tribunal's decision was erroneous in law in this respect. An analysis of the nature of, and relationship between, pain and (severe) discomfort is unnecessary and unhelpful. These are not words with precise meanings and the conflicting views on which is the lesser is an indication, if one is needed, that they are not used uniformly. In the context of this decision, it is clear that the Tribunal regarded pain as being less than severe discomfort. It is not clear how the claimant used these words or whether she had fully appreciated the significance in law of the words "severe discomfort".

7. It is important for the Tribunal to avoid linguistic analysis, and to distinguish between the legal test to be applied and the evidence given. The legal test is of the claimant's walking ability "without severe discomfort" : see regulation 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Disability Living Allowance Regulations. The Tribunal should obtain evidence of the symptoms which the claimant experiences whilst walking. That evidence may or may not use words like "discomfort", "pain", "distress", or "agony". Regardless of the language used to describe the symptoms, the Tribunal must then relate that evidence to the legal test. In doing so the Tribunal will take into account (a) the whole of the evidence, including such matters as the diagnosis, medication, and any medical evidence of disablement; (b) their assessment of the claimant's credibility as a witness; and (c) their assessment of the claimant's pain threshold and ability to report symptoms accurately. Finally a decision must be made whether the symptoms experienced by the claimant are properly described as "severe discomfort". The Tribunal's reasons should explain how they have related the evidence to the terms of the legal test. In failing to do so, they are inadequate and the decision is erroneous in law."

R(M) 1/81 - This holds that any walking which can only be managed with "severe discomfort" should be ignored.

CM/267/1993 - This held that adjudicating authorities should not apply as a test that "discomfort" only becomes "severe" when the claimant is unable to continue walking because of it. It was accepted that a claimant could be in "severe discomfort" whilst walking.

CM/166/1988 - where it was held that just because a claimant did not appear to be in "severe discomfort did not mean that he was not : "pain can be borne in stoic silence."

STOP PRESS

The above view has not been accepted by Commissioner May in CSIB/60/96. He states : "I am not satisfied given that different context of phrase in respect of different regulations for different benefits that it is safe to rely in incapacity credits or definitives which had been formulated for mobility and Disability Living Allowance."

I'm not convinced that this is the correct approach and I will be continuing to argue that the case-law does apply, but clearly this argument will be flying in the face of what (for the time being) is an authoritative decision.

2. Walking up and down stairs:

This is a relatively straightforward descriptor, however there is a question as to whether the test is satisfied only if the claimant is unable to go up and down stairs or if the claimant is unable to go up or downstairs. I would imagine that the answer is that either would do.

3. Sitting in an upright chair with a back but no arms:

Note the difference between the pre-6 January 1997 and the post-6 January 1997 version of this descriptor. The original version is less strict and requires the claimant only to move from the chair whilst the new version only recognises the need to move from the chair if it has become impossible for the claimant to continue sitting.

It could be argued that descriptor 3(a) should be given its everyday meaning and that a claimant who cannot sit comfortably gets 15 points, but realistically it must be viewed in the context of other descriptors to include the words 'so that it is impossible to sit at all.' Otherwise the other descriptors would be meaningless.

The test must relate to an upright chair with a back but without arms. This should exclude the ability to sit in an armchair or couch or an upright chair with a back and arms. It is arguable that Tribunals could use findings on the claimant's ability to sit on other types of seats as indicators of the claimant's ability to sit on the type of chair envisaged by the descriptors, but these findings must be related to the descriptors, and failure to do so is an error of law. (See CSIB 12/96)

Representatives should beware the claimant who indicates that he cannot sit for more than a very short time, who then sits throughout the two hour hearing! Claimants should be reminded that hearings are informal and that if they are in discomfort there is nothing to stop them standing up.

4. Standing without the support of another person or the use of an aid except a walking stick:

The only aid which must or can be taken into account is a walking stick. A crutch is not a walking stick as it provides a different type of support. Note that the descriptor only refers to a walking stick (singular) so if the sticks are used the test should be deemed satisfied.

It is worthwhile checking how long the claimant stood at the BAMs medical as it tends to only be for the physical examination itself which generally only lasts for a few minutes, and may well involve movement by the claimant.

5. Rising from sitting in an upright chair with a back but no arms without the help of another person:

If someone else has to help the claimant to rise from the chair envisaged by the descriptor the claimant scores 15 points.

Sometimes claimants say that they use their hands on the chair to push themselves up from the seated position. It should be argued (if anyone objects) that this constitutes holding on. I have my doubts that it does, but so far no-one has said differently.

I don't know about the new IB 50 but the old one certainly was flawed in respect of how it phrased 5(c). The IB 50 reads "You can sometimes get up from a chair without holding on to something." This is a stricter test than the descriptor and may explain why claimants do not tick it, but later claim difficulty when rising from sitting.

6. Bending and Kneeling:

It should be borne in mind that the test is cannot bend or kneel, or cannot bend and kneel to pick up a piece of paper from the floor and straighten up again. If a claimant cannot kneel but can bend to do this activity then no points are scored.

If the claimant cannot straighten up again then the 15 points are achieved. If the claimant has to hold on to something in order to bend, kneel or straighten up then the 15 points are scored. See CSIB/12/96.

Prior to 6 January 1997 the test was simply cannot bend or kneel and did not include the more limiting test of cannot bend and kneel.

7. Manual Dexterity:

The inability to use a pen or a pencil refers only to one hand, i.e. the hand that the claimant normally writes with and if the claimant cannot write then he scores the 15 points unless he is ambidextrous.

The fact that a claimant filled in the IB50 is not evidence that he can use a pen or pencil. Finding must be made with regards to the conditions under which the form was completed, i.e. how long did it take etc. See CIB/16237/96.

hjb123

the_blue_angel wrote:

it mentioned alot of questions but how would you reply to the questions to score the maxium amount of points to pass

You are meant to answer the questions about you and your condition, not to score the maximum amount of points to pass