DWP, Medicals

cit_k

bobo09 wrote: »

My assessor a nurse wrote on my medical that it lasted from 1516-1616. I was still in the waiting area at 1535 and was out her room by 1605, i left the building walked up a ramp and then used my mobile phone-call logged at 1607. She stated in her report under Peripheral circulation test-normal capillary return, toenail regains colour about 2 seconds after being pressed-for both feet, which is absolutely amazing as i never removed my socks and shoes. (which has nothing to do with my illness but why lie about it)
They fail to include other illnesses/ symptoms which are relevant to the claim.

I was not sure about how they record times, I thought, to give them the benefit of doubt, that it could be a case of they start the timing from when they first open your file (ie before they make contact with you and when they are reading up on you) and end time could be when they have finnished reviewing the report for mistakes after you have left.

But no, thats not the case, it does appear the assessor has lied on your report (either by hand if a written report, or by deliberate mis-use of the software if a standard report).

3.1.3.6.1 Timings in the interview
Details about the claimant will have been entered on the report form by the
administration staff, through the MSRS system, and you should check these.
The time of start of examination is when you first make contact with the claimant.
The time the examination ends is the time when the claimant is considered by the
practitioner to meet criterion for the Support Group (and the claimant does not
want to proceed to a WFHRA), or the “exam ended” button is pressed, or when
you progress past “observed behaviour”. These details will be automatically
recorded by LiMA but if for any reason you complete a clerical report, you must
take care to enter this data accurately.
Timings in the LiMA application are critical and an understanding of this is
essential.

[taken from official esa manual for assessors]

Oldernotwiser

FTW wrote: »

And that wouldn't bother you if you had to see one? .

Not at all.

How on earth could you run a system where every single claimant was seen by a doctor with specialist knowledge? Many patients with chronic disease never even see a specialist for their regular treatment! What about people with multiple disabilities? Should they be seen several times by a range of different people? Personally, I'd prefer specialists to be using their tome to actually treat patients, but maybe that's just me?

Anyway, it isn't the medical practitioner who does the assessment who decides who gets awarded benefits - it's the Decision Maker who does this and none of them are medically qualified.

celinepatricia

And the decision maker goes of what the assessor puts in the report and the decision maker has never set eyes on the person who they are making decisions about. So, if you get an assessor who fabricates his report you have got no chance!!

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Not at all.

How on earth could you run a system where every single claimant was seen by a doctor with specialist knowledge? Many patients with chronic disease never even see a specialist for their regular treatment! What about people with multiple disabilities? Should they be seen several times by a range of different people? Personally, I'd prefer specialists to be using their tome to actually treat patients, but maybe that's just me?

Anyway, it isn't the medical practitioner who does the assessment who decides who gets awarded benefits - it's the Decision Maker who does this and none of them are medically qualified.

The decision maker has to give more weight to the ATOS report for evidence, so that report is basically what is used to decide entitlement.

Gemstar30

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Not at all.

How on earth could you run a system where every single claimant was seen by a doctor with specialist knowledge? Many patients with chronic disease never even see a specialist for their regular treatment! What about people with multiple disabilities? Should they be seen several times by a range of different people? Personally, I'd prefer specialists to be using their tome to actually treat patients, but maybe that's just me?

Anyway, it isn't the medical practitioner who does the assessment who decides who gets awarded benefits - it's the Decision Maker who does this and none of them are medically qualified.

Hello

I thought like you until I started to understand just what the law of ESA requires of the claimant.

To be quite honest, anybody is capable of assessing as long as they have undergone training in 'disability medicine'.

It's got nothing to do with your illness(es) or indeed your disability (ies). As such there is no need for any specialist to assess you.
The assessor is there to look at your behaviour, abilities and limitations relevant to if they think or believe that you are capable of doing some work or not. It matters not what is wrong with you or how it is treated medically. It does not matter if there is no job available that you could do, they consider it only that if there was one you would be able to do it.

An example will be that someone in a wheelchair can be more than capable of working.
Someone with a serious heart condition could also be more than capable of working.
Indeed many seriously ill people do manage to hold down some sort of employment.

The whole idea behind ESA is first to 'weed' out those that are clearly able to work but choose not to. Secondly, those that could work if they received professional help to do so.
And finally those that are clearly that ill or disabled that the possiblity of working is negligible.

Of course there are cases that fall through the net, but those are caught up in the appeal system. Unfortunately the way ESA works encourages everybody to appeal because even if the claimant is clearly able to work, they would still receive their money during the appeal period and not have to 'sign on' for it.
The government are getting it right now and putting those that fail the medical straight onto JSA and made to look for work whilst the appeal carries on.

Gemma
x


PS Oooops, sorry I have replied to the wrong posting - yes I am blonde!!!!

celinepatricia

Just been looking at the paperwork

I have considered Mr ???? ESA50 and the medical practitioners report from the examination.

I agree with the descriptors chosen by the health care professional.

How can the decision maker agree when they have not even seen the person who is trying to claim. ??

To me that is basically saying to the claimant and their doctors and consultants that they are all liars and the ATOS people are all right all the time every time..

Indie_Kid

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Not at all.

How on earth could you run a system where every single claimant was seen by a doctor with specialist knowledge?

Many specialists are trained in more than one area. Last month, I saw a neurologist who knew quite a bit about my eye problems.

Many patients with chronic disease never even see a specialist for their regular treatment!

Many of us don't have regular treatments. All I currently get is yearly medication checks and yearly eye tests.

Gemstar30

celinepatricia wrote: »

Just been looking at the paperwork

I have considered Mr ???? ESA50 and the medical practitioners report from the examination.

I agree with the descriptors chosen by the health care professional.

How can the decision maker agree when they have not even seen the person who is trying to claim. ??

To me that is basically saying to the claimant and their doctors and consultants that they are all liars and the ATOS people are all right all the time every time..

Hello,

They don't have to. When you fill in the ESA50 you should have given enough information, examples etc that that coupled with the assessors report is more than enough to base the decision on.

If the ESA50 was not complete in every aspect, then you can't expect them to be able to give a proper decision. The onus and responsibility on claiming ESA and putting forward your case is down to you, not your doctor or consultant.

What your GP/consultant does has nothing to do with being assessed for ESA. They decide how to treat you, ATOS just look at the possibility that you could do some work whether you are ill, disabled or not.

Gemma
x

cit_k

Gemstar30 wrote: »

To be quite honest, anybody is capable of assessing as long as they have undergone training in 'disability medicine'.

You mean the few day course, where the training and certification is done by the company that hires the assessors (so not independant) and that company is a software company, so not really specialists in the area are they..

Gemstar30 wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with your illness(es) or indeed your disability (ies). As such there is no need for any specialist to assess you.

True and false.

It is not diagnosis based (although really it is sometimes) but unless someone has a understanding of how a condition affects someone they are unable to properly complete an accurate medical report on the problems a person faces, and whether what they are reporting matches known medical science data.

Gemstar30 wrote: »

The assessor is there to look at your behaviour, abilities and limitations relevant to if they think or believe that you are capable of doing some work or not. It matters not what is wrong with you or how it is treated medically.

Again true and false, side effects/problems due to treatment have to be included as part of the assessment.

Gemstar30 wrote: »

An example will be that someone in a wheelchair can be more than capable of working.

One sided, therefore illustrative of propaganda.
Not everyone in a wheelchair is capable of working.

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Someone with a serious heart condition could also be more than capable of working.

One sided, therefore illustrative of propaganda.
Not everyone in a with a serious heart condition is capable of working

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Indeed many seriously ill people do manage to hold down some sort of employment.

One sided, therefore illustrative of propaganda.
Not everyone that is seriously ill is capable of working.

Gemstar30 wrote: »

The whole idea behind ESA is first to 'weed' out those that are clearly able to work but choose not to.

Propaganda at its worst [or best depending on how you look at it]
The point of ESA has NEVER been to weed out those that are clearly able to work but choose not to.
Because everyone on IB has PROVEN they are unfit to work.
ESA is a cost cutting excercise, and a means to *increase* unemployment. (read more).

The whole thing also stinks of corruption (read more)

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Secondly, those that could work if they received professional help to do so.

Again, more propaganda, what professional help?
You mean the (laughably bad quality, provided by people with no specialist qualifications or experiance) help provided by third parties that put in bids. ATOS is bidding to do that you know, and they are not independant, and have a lousy track record.

You mean the help, that depends ENTIRELY on the work health assessment that determines what problems a claimaint faces in returning to the workforce, and what type of help is required?
The assessment that has been suspended for two years?

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Gemstar30 wrote: »

And finally those that are clearly that ill or disabled that the possiblity of working is negligible.

Of which only 5 percent are getting into that group?
Despite the fact terminally ill people have been told they are fit for work?
Despite 40 percent success rate at appeal?

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Of course there are cases that fall through the net, but those are caught up in the appeal system. Unfortunately the way ESA works encourages everybody to appeal because even if the claimant is clearly able to work, they would still receive their money during the appeal period and not have to 'sign on' for it.
The government are getting it right now and putting those that fail the medical straight onto JSA and made to look for work whilst the appeal carries on.

Gemma
x

Do you have a source for this, when did this happen, the forcing onto JSA whilst waiting for appeal?

Oldernotwiser

Gemstar30 wrote: »

Hello

I thought like you until I started to understand just what the law of ESA requires of the claimant.

To be quite honest, anybody is capable of assessing as long as they have undergone training in 'disability medicine'.

It's got nothing to do with your illness(es) or indeed your disability (ies). As such there is no need for any specialist to assess you.
The assessor is there to look at your behaviour, abilities and limitations relevant to if they think or believe that you are capable of doing some work or not. It matters not what is wrong with you or how it is treated medically. It does not matter if there is no job available that you could do, they consider it only that if there was one you would be able to do it.

An example will be that someone in a wheelchair can be more than capable of working.
Someone with a serious heart condition could also be more than capable of working.
Indeed many seriously ill people do manage to hold down some sort of employment.

The whole idea behind ESA is first to 'weed' out those that are clearly able to work but choose not to. Secondly, those that could work if they received professional help to do so.
And finally those that are clearly that ill or disabled that the possiblity of working is negligible.

Of course there are cases that fall through the net, but those are caught up in the appeal system. Unfortunately the way ESA works encourages everybody to appeal because even if the claimant is clearly able to work, they would still receive their money during the appeal period and not have to 'sign on' for it.
The government are getting it right now and putting those that fail the medical straight onto JSA and made to look for work whilst the appeal carries on.

Gemma
x


PS Oooops, sorry I have replied to the wrong posting - yes I am blonde!!!!

I was waiting for the bit where you disagreed with me!