Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

alwaysonthego_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

What "professional site" - it was done in bits and pieces - now I know you were taking the !!!!.

... are you saying it is not a professional site?

cit_k

bitsandpieces wrote: »

Medical doctors in Britain are regulated by the GMC. If the doctor in this case has not followed good practice, you can complain to the GMC http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/complaints_and_role_of_the_gmc/index.asp

Not all dwp examiners are doctors.

And out of the ones that are, not all of them still have their 'approval' a few have had their approval revoked.

Some are no longer practising either...

cit_k

healy wrote: »

There have been Doctors who have complained about having to pass too many claimants so complaints are avoided, this disproves your theory.

I take it you are referring to the widely reported story about the atos docs, the one that was in several national newspapers....

Bet you dont know they lost that tribunal, and their evidence was referred to as something like a pack of lies...

Or that, they set up a company charging benefit claimaints loads of money in order that they could 'help' them through the procedure of claiming a sickness benefit....

Or that they faced the chance of having to pay record costs after the tribunal (still waiting to hear what happened about the costs)..

Those docs, could not get any of their allegations to stand up to scrutiny, and the fact they set up a company helping pass anyone with money proves their erm, lack of ethics....

cit_k

healy wrote: »

There is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

The reduction is intended through pathways to work.

You have provided no proof or evidence that ATOS have been given targets to reduce IB. You clearly have none.

Really?

Not ESA?

Despite the fact ESA was specifically introduced to meet the target of 1 million of incapacity style benefits?

The welfare reforms are all about doing this.

ATOS is part of the process.

ATOS develops lima, and was part of the working group for the ESA assessments.

They may not (or may have, but if they were they would not admit it) been told to fail people on purpose, but certainly the goalposts are being moved, and they are part of the moving process.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dwp.gov.uk%2Fdocs%2Fesaasanactivebenefit.ppt&ei=6buQSqOtOOKgjAeM4K2ADg&rct=j&q=esa+1+million+incapacity&usg=AFQjCNGprhH4_rBh2wALvI2JEbB-IYvoBQ

note in the link above, 1 million less by 2015....

cit_k

healy wrote: »

You are not correct and all you are doing is repeating the same thing.

You have no proof that there are targets to fail benefit claimants. Give us some figures, give us some evidence.

You have already posted that link numerous times, I have read the article and there is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

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

Figures and evidence?

All the appeals.

There is no way there could be as many appeals as there is, with such a high success rate if something dodgy was not going on.

Certainly a handful of mistakes could be expected, but not the numbers that exists now....

cit_k

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Yep - you wrote, "Contracts are usually given to the cheapest bidder, nothing to do with targets" - and you are clearly wrong.

Quote; "In awarding contracts, there are two options: lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender. The latter is equivalent to the Government’s value for money objective and should be the option chosen."

So - contracts ARE NOT awarded to the "cheapest bidder" - but those giving value for money are chosen i.e. those firms that help reach economical objectives e.g. reaching target cuts.

Are you aware their is a lot more to the contract with ATOS than most realise?

As well as them doing the medicals, oh and buying up a load of dwp medical centers etc (privatisation of the public sector, well hidden, but done) the DWP profit from their relationship with atos.

They even use the fact they profit as an excuse to deny the right to natural justice in my opinion.

cit_k

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Dear 70sfreak - I am also sickened by their attitude - this is what angers me - they treat claimants with the same contempt as criminals - but giving claimants less rights e.g. opinion can be used against them in legal action but not to criminals.

Those who have been on the receiving end know what it is like.

Criminals get better treatment, better legal aid, and less harrasment in the press on the whole (apart from mass murderers etc).

healy

cit_k wrote: »

Figures and evidence?

All the appeals.

There is no way there could be as many appeals as there is, with such a high success rate if something dodgy was not going on.

Certainly a handful of mistakes could be expected, but not the numbers that exists now....

Yes I know all the stuff you have posted.

Despite this no one has given any figures for targets for ATOS, only for the DWP. You have no evidence.

NASA_2

nogginthenog wrote: »

What a ridiculious answer and no proof provided!....I am sure that CAB and Benefits advisors can turn their hands to something else if need be,
and you know it!

Shush now.

You know I am right:T

cit_k

healy wrote: »

Yes I know all the stuff you have posted.

Despite this no one has given any figures for targets for ATOS, only for the DWP. You have no evidence.

The DWP pays ATOS.

The DWP tells ATOS what how to test, and how things should be done.

The DWP have targets to meet.

ps, if you know all the things I posted, why did I have to post them?
Why would you be posting about things that were either misleading or innacurate if you *knew* that was the case?

If you knew, then surely you should not have posted, or explained the full facts when you posted?