Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

cozza

hi 70sfreak
I am on esa and i got no points for my medical so i appealed against it
I does take a little while for the tribunal date to come through the tribunal made me feel at eays didnt judge me i told the how my depression effects my life and some days i have a good day othere days i have bad days .
They ruled in my favour and i got 21 points
mind you i did have to make a new claim for eas while appeal and tribunal was going on
But when i went to tribunal on 7th July i was told i would get my money back dated to march but i got it back dated to feb so it is worth appealing as atos dont know nothing they just want to reach gov targets so appeal dont sit back and let them get away with it good luck
cozza

cit_k

healy wrote: »

The Doctors/Nurses do not get paid for failing people, they get a flat rate fee per medical whether the claimant passes or fails.

Hence logically, spending more time with each claimaint, in order to ensure a fair and accurate medical would just reduce the number of medicals they can perform in a day, and reduce how much money they take.

Speeding through the medicals however, increases their take home pay. As would not spending time after the claimaint leaves thoroughly reviewing the report produced by lima (the software) to ensure it is not full of inconsitancies, untruthes and fiction - before authorising it as a full and accurate assessment.

As would fairly assessing someone as not requiring a medical, or fairly assessing the length of time inbetween medicals, the more medicals they do, the more money they make.

healy

cit_k wrote: »

Hence logically, spending more time with each claimaint, in order to ensure a fair and accurate medical would just reduce the number of medicals they can perform in a day, and reduce how much money they take.

Speeding through the medicals however, increases their take home pay. As would not spending time after the claimaint leaves thoroughly reviewing the report produced by lima (the software) to ensure it is not full of inconsitancies, untruthes and fiction - before authorising it as a full and accurate assessment.

As would fairly assessing someone as not requiring a medical, or fairly assessing the length of time inbetween medicals, the more medicals they do, the more money they make.

That would depend on the ethics of the Doctor/Nurse concerned.

The majority of people have fair medicals, some may be shorter and still pass if the Doctor/ Nurse has all the information they need. I know of many cases where people have had short medicals and still passed.

Boards like this generally by their nature highlight the cases where things have not gone their way.

It is also going to be the case that some people simply do not qualify because they are not that ill/disabled.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

That would depend on the ethics of the Doctor/Nurse concerned.

The majority of people have fair medicals, some may be shorter and still pass if the Doctor/ Nurse has all the information they need. I know of many cases where people have had short medicals and still passed.

Surely - all medicals should be fair.

And how would you explain people like Cozza - who fail by massive margin - why shouldn't these so-called doctor's lose their job for gross negligence - especially when in reality of situation they are attempting to defraud claimant of legal right to entitlement?

BTW: Some medicals are short because claimant is more 'obviously' incapable of work.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Surely - all medicals should be fair.

And how would you explain people like Cozza - who fail by massive margin - why shouldn't these so-called doctor's lose their job for gross negligence - especially when in reality of situation they are attempting to defraud claimant of legal right to entitlement?

BTW: Some medicals are short because claimant is more 'obviously' incapable of work.

Life is not fair, most people learn that.

It would not be gross negligence.

Thats why I said medicals would be short if they had the information required.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

Life is not fair, most people learn that.

It would not be gross negligence.

Thats why I said medicals would be short if they had the information required.

1. Objective 'medical' tests do not need to be unfair.

2. If not gross negligence then what is it.

3. If not attempted fraud then what is it.

4. Medicals are also short because enough care is not taken and claimants are thus failed.

Uncertain

Gentlemen.......

Like many of you I have serious concerns about some aspects of the benefits system.

However, this forum is supposed to be about helping people with their particular problem and not a place to endlessly debate the rights and wrongs of the system.

It seems now that any question posted about ESA / IB etc moves rapidly into a repeat of the same debate.

Can I suggest you write to your MPs and / or find a more suitable place for "political" debates.

Thanks

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

1. Objective 'medical' tests do not need to be unfair.

2. If not gross negligence then what is it.

3. If not attempted fraud then what is it.

4. Medicals are also short because enough care is not taken and claimants are thus failed.

1. The majority of medicals are not unfair.

2. I am not here to answer your questions, there is little point because you take no notice of anything I say.

3. I did not even say anything about fraud you did.

4. Medicals are short because of the reasons I have already stated.

This forum is for benefits questions and queries and I do not understand why you insist on picking at my posts and looking for arguments all the time.

healy

Uncertain wrote: »

Gentlemen.......

Like many of you I have serious concerns about some aspects of the benefits system.

However, this forum is supposed to be about helping people with their particular problem and not a place to endlessly debate the rights and wrongs of the system.

It seems now that any question posted about ESA / IB etc moves rapidly into a repeat of the same debate.

Can I suggest you write to your MPs and / or find a more suitable place for "political" debates.

Thanks

I agree.

I have made a point of not replying to posts by Garry Anderson unless they refer directly to mine, unfortunately he keeps picking at my posts and therefore I have to reply to defend myself.

Another poster picked up on a post I posted 10 days ago which I find very odd.

I would be grateful if they left my posts alone as this is what I have been doing in an effort to stop these threads being ruined.

Garry_Anderson

Uncertain wrote: »

Gentlemen.......

However, this forum is supposed to be about helping people with their particular problem and not a place to endlessly debate the rights and wrongs of the system.

Duh - all my points relate directly to the problems of each poster e.g. why they have been given less points and why they have been ignored - are you saying they don't need to be told these facts - how they relate to their case.

It is not simply political - that is being simplistic - it is also systemic - the supporters of current system on this forum want the critics to be quiet - do you then.