Home visit for sickness but not been off long?

Duncombe

SarEl wrote: »

Stress is a medical diagnosis ( not a terribly good one, but it is one) - work-related stress is not a medical diagnosis. Your doctor cannot say it is work-related based on anything more than your word for it.

I find this point really interesting. Does that mean that the GP can't have cited "work-related stress and anxiety" as a reason for illness? Or indeed used that on a sicknote?

Sorry to take the thread off topic, im just interested.

elsien

I don't know if they should or not, but they certainly do. One of my staff has just brought in a note giving work related stress as the reason for being signed off work. Perhaps the poster meant that if it came to it further down the line (eg at a tribunal) the person would have to provide evidence to justify that the stress was work-related as opposed to just taking the GP's word for it because that's what the fit note says.

Uncertain

The best way to deal with these situations is to be gently but firmly proactive.

It is quite possible if you had kept in touch a little more the firm would not be wanting to visit at this stage.

I would suggest, for future reference, that each time you see your doctor you send the firm some kind of email update. To be honest it need not convey any useful information but at least then they can't complain about not being informed!

If your doctor feels that such a meeting would be bad for your health, and is prepared to back this up in writing if need be, then by all means decline. Again you could be pro-active and suggest that they might like to seek a report from your doctor. This will take some time as you have a legal right to see the report and discuss it with your doctor before it is sent. It will also cost the firm about £180. It will however keep them off your back for several weeks.

If there is to be a meeting then one big advantage of having it at your home is that it makes it virtually impossible for the firm to refuse to let you have whoever you choose present. If they turn up and your husband / wife / father or whoever is present they can hardly ask them to leave! If you go to them they can (and probably will) limit you to a colleague or trade union rep.

Longer term you need to consider if the work situation is likely to improve and with it your health. If not then, realistically, you are best looking for a way out with some kind of pay off.

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

The best way to deal with these situations is to be gently but firmly proactive.

It is quite possible if you had kept in touch a little more the firm would not be wanting to visit at this stage.

I would suggest, for future reference, that each time you see your doctor you send the firm some kind of email update. To be honest it need not convey any useful information but at least then they can't complain about not being informed!

If your doctor feels that such a meeting would be bad for your health, and is prepared to back this up in writing if need be, then by all means decline. Again you could be pro-active and suggest that they might like to seek a report from your doctor. This will take some time as you have a legal right to see the report and discuss it with your doctor before it is sent. It will also cost the firm about £180. It will however keep them off your back for several weeks.

If there is to be a meeting then one big advantage of having it at your home is that it makes it virtually impossible for the firm to refuse to let you have whoever you choose present. If they turn up and your husband / wife / father or whoever is present they can hardly ask them to leave! If you go to them they can (and probably will) limit you to a colleague or trade union rep.

Longer term you need to consider if the work situation is likely to improve and with it your health. If not then, realistically, you are best looking for a way out with some kind of pay off.

The advice is good but if you are going to play the waiting game then I would not get the Dr involved just yet because once the company have the written report it is a step further for a company dismissing on capability grounds.

I would have thought the OP would be better going to this meeting with someone they know, assessing the likely hood of the company trying to dismiss (which may be 0 ) and if it is likely then get the Dr involved, this would buy at worst a month ontop of of the time taken to get the report (4-6 weeks).

Zazen999

MollyCoddle1 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I hope someone can help.

I have been off work since 26th July due to Bronchitis (Had to phone in sick that week due to Fever and Bronchitis but then explained to my GP exactly how i had been feeling and he confirmed i was suffering from Depression) and work related stress and anxiety. (My supervisor has been treating me awfully, shouting at me in front of colleagues, etc)

You HAD fever and bronchitus [and I know both of those well]...but your doctor told you that you had depression and work related stress AND anxiety. But you didn't know that you had work related stress and anxiety until he told you, and you don't say that you think you are depressed; just have a boss that treats you awfully and shouts at you. But you haven't submitted a grievance I take it?

And then, when the company that you are now accusing of giving you work related stress, depression and anxiety try to meet with you to deal with this; you think it is too early and question their motives.

What exactly do you expect the company to do, when you are basically accusing them of giving you work related stress, depression and anxiety?

How do you expect them to make adjustments to your work if you won't meet with them? How are they to facilitate your return to work without discussing it with you?

Just interested in how they are supposed to do this?

SarEl

Duncombe wrote: »

I find this point really interesting. Does that mean that the GP can't have cited "work-related stress and anxiety" as a reason for illness? Or indeed used that on a sicknote?

Sorry to take the thread off topic, im just interested.

No - a GP can put anything they want. But what they say actually has very little standing in law, and the more they move away from clinical diagnosis the less standing it has. If you read the fit notes carefully the wording is something along the lines of "in my opinion" (can't recall exactly what these new ones say as I haven't seen many yet). Effectively a GP is not in a position to accurately diagnose a lot of things. For example, if the GP sees you have a high temperature and a runny nose and are tired and achey, he or she is going to tell you you have a cold, yes. But they do not know that for a fact. It is the most likely explanation, but without a clinical diagnosis it could in fact be, oh, I don't know - malaria? So the GP generally gives an opinion. And sometimes those "opinions" are rather inaccurate and highly contentious. Stress is one of these.

"Anxiety", "depression" etc etc - in other words a range of symptoms associated with this thing called stress - can be tested clinically in a variety of ways. So doctors can describe someone as suffering from stress because they exhibit certain symptoms. What they cannot do is evidence why someone has those symptoms. So if someone walks in and says, my boss is bullying me, they accept that on face value. They take your word for it. They do not know for a fact this is true. They make no attempt to validate o prove what you say. So "workplace stress" is a meaningless diagnosis because they have neither the evidence not the expertise to say that it is anything to do with the workplace, not even that it isn't your own fault. Want to take a guess how often people facing (justified) disciplinary action come back with sick notes that cite "workplace stress". That is why the diagnosis has no real benefit in law.

So they can say it, but what is required to make it more than opinion based on nothing but one persons word is evidence. That was the point that I was making. Employers are now treating stress as the new backache. That isn't to say that stress does not exist - as does backache. But it is the easiest thing in the world to fake, and has become a fast favourite for people doing just that. That diminishes the position of people who are quite rightly and properly suffering from what is, in the end, a very serious condition if not resolved.

Blackpool_Saver

fit note? is this new thing?

Zazen999

Just adding, when I inherited a team I had one person go off with work related stress.

This involved getting found out that she had been using a manual for 2 whole years, where every second page hadn't been printed.
She hadn't worked it out, and had been inputting data incorrectly for 2 years. She hadn't even noticed that every second page hadn't been printed either. This data had impacted on 3 other members of staff [who had got 'low' and had a reputation of doing no work at all...when they had and it just hadn't been inputted - and the person who had the job before me hadn't bothered to find out what was actually wrong] and the team in general...all because of her ignorance.

As soon as i found out what she had been doing, she didn't turn up again, went off work with 'work related stress' and accused a colleague of racism at the same time [which wasn't true].

We had to meet and facilitate a return to work; and after 3 of these meetings where i spent valuable time going through each issue and developing a plan for her return, she never turned up and handed her notice in.

So yes, perhaps I'm cynical but having seen 'work related stress' in action and having been on the end of trying to manage it; when it didn't exist in the first place; it needs more than just 'someone's been mean to me' for a diagnosis.

SarEl

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

fit note? is this new thing?

Yes. There are no longer sick notes. They are "fitness notes". The GP can advise (not instruct!) a range of options which may include "refraining from work" as the old notes did, but can now also include advice to the employer as to what the person is fit to do. So if you have a broken arm, you may not be able to lift the post bags, but you may be able to sort the mail - that sort of thing. The employer then has the option of providing alternative employment as a temporary measure rather than loosing an employee and paying sick pay.

SarEl

Zazen999 wrote: »

Just adding, when I inherited a team I had one person go off with work related stress.

This involved getting found out that she had been using a manual for 2 whole years, where every second page hadn't been printed.
She hadn't worked it out, and had been inputting data incorrectly for 2 years. She hadn't even noticed that every second page hadn't been printed either. This data had impacted on 3 other members of staff [who had got 'low' and had a reputation of doing no work at all...when they had and it just hadn't been inputted - and the person who had the job before me hadn't bothered to find out what was actually wrong] and the team in general...all because of her ignorance.

As soon as i found out what she had been doing, she didn't turn up again, went off work with 'work related stress' and accused a colleague of racism at the same time [which wasn't true].

We had to meet and facilitate a return to work; and after 3 of these meetings where i spent valuable time going through each issue and developing a plan for her return, she never turned up and handed her notice in.

So yes, perhaps I'm cynical but having seen 'work related stress' in action and having been on the end of trying to manage it; when it didn't exist in the first place; it needs more than just 'someone's been mean to me' for a diagnosis.

Yes, this is what I mean. It is a two-edged sword now, and it also makes my life a lot harder. Because there are undoubtedly and obviously people who fake it, it is that much harder to make a case for people who actually aren't. People forget that Tribunal judges are also people - and they also know this. So it isn't just employers who are becoming immune to claims of stress, it is also Tribunals. It is no longer taken as seriously as it once was by either employers or Tribunals, and that is shame because for people who really are suffering its effects, whether by dint of work or other reasons, are actually given much less sympathy and support than formerly - there's a lot of being seen to do the right thing by employers, but a lot less actually doing it. It's a case of the boy who cried wolf. Although I suppose you could say that it is good news for people with backache - it's that much easier to get believed now than it used to be