Esa medical report

cit_k

Here is the other one I mentioned

The bit in question is quoted below

60. Finally, I must acknowledge that there is no suggestion in this case that the appellant has acted other than in an open and straightforward manner. This is not, therefore, a case in which a claimant has surreptitiously tape-recorded an interview or medical examination. That type of case may well involve different considerations, e.g. as regards the admissibility of evidence in subsequent tribunal proceedings (on which see the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Chairman & Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty (UKEAT/0243/06/DA).

and the case no is CIB 3117 2008 (link)

healy

hrafndot wrote: »

Could DWP have misapplied the rules? this is what has been happening to me all along. I'm very familiar with the DWP rule book for this reason.!!!

BTW how do you qualify as a troll?

Yes that could be the case, ESA is very complicated and it does not seem to run smoothly everywhere by any means.

To qualify as a troll you have to answer questions and do your best to be helpful - this board is a bit twisted!

dmg24

cit_k wrote: »

Here is the other one I mentioned

The bit in question is quoted below



and the case no is CIB 3117 2008 (link)

The ratio of this case does not support your assertion. The point that you quote is obiter, and still does not support your assertion.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

The ratio of this case does not support your assertion. The point that you quote is obiter, and still does not support your assertion.

In what was does a judge in the tribunal, stating, officially, that a covert recording should require different rules than a overt one, and specifically quoting a case where covert recordings were accepted into evidence, not support the case?

What on earth would make you think a tribunal would not accept the evidence?

pipkin71

dmg24 wrote: »

You called?

One point for the OP to consider - it is rare that all medics will agree on a patient's prognosis. Therefore the examiners conclusion is not necessarily wrong, there is no reason why he should automatically agree with your consultant. This is the purpose of an independent examination.

Slightly OT, but I was given the same prognosis recently, so have decided to seek another opinion privately, just in case my consultant was wrong

Hearing there is no cure, only further deterioration is awful, so the fact that not all medics will agree is something positive to hold on to.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

The ratio of this case does not support your assertion. The point that you quote is obiter, and still does not support your assertion.

and more importantly, why are some in this forum, so opposed to people recording medicals? What agenda is behind it?

cit_k

pipkin71 wrote: »

Slightly OT, but I was given the same prognosis recently, so have decided to seek another opinion privately, just in case my consultant was wrong

Hearing there is no cure, only further deterioration is awful, so the fact that not all medics will agree is something positive to hold on to.

Best of luck, just dont get one from ATOS to do the second opinion....

NASA_2

cit_k wrote: »

and more importantly, why are some in this forum, so opposed to people recording medicals? What agenda is behind it?

There is nothing to stop people recording a medical. They just need to be responsible and ensure that the person doing the medical is given the appropriate protection.

Tape recordings can be doctored to make it seem like something was said when it really wasnt.

dmg24

cit_k wrote: »

Ok, the one where covertly recorded evidence was allowed is

UKEAT/0243/06/DA

but I will be back in a bit, with another case no, which was dealing directly with recording ATOS medicals, and because it was not done covertly, they lost, but in terms of had it been done covertly, the tribunal actually referred to the case above....... They also noted that the DWP rules could probably be challenged... But thats another matter entirely.

Again, Dogherty does not wholly support your assertion. Indeed, depending on how a medical would be classified, it could support the opposite viewpoint.

dmg24

cit_k wrote: »

and more importantly, why are some in this forum, so opposed to people recording medicals? What agenda is behind it?

You have not responded to my post. Do you accept that your interpretation of the noted cases is inaccurate?

I am not aware of anyone that is opposed to people recording medicals. Perhaps I missed those posts.