have you been for an ATOS medical?

dmg24

the_devil_made_me_do_it wrote: »

To be honest dmg, I have never read any threads which have discussed recording medicals. I got the idea from a youtube clip I watched. The guy who recorded the clip said it was essential to record the assesment as a way to collect evidence in case an appeal or complaint needed to be made.

I honestly can't see why ATOS or DWP have a problem with recordings for personal use. I think it's very suspect that they don't allow it.

The problem is that, if there is only one recording of the medical, that recording can be doctored. There have been instances where a dual recording has been allowed, so they can have a copy too.

If you think about a police interview under caution, imagine the uproar there would be if the police did not allow the detainee a copy of the interview. This is the same principle, just the other way round.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

I wanted to ask permission first Invalidation. Didn't want anymore complications than needs be.

Surely they could ask you to sign a comprehensive disclaimer that the recording will not be altered in any way or used for anything other than personal.

Also, mine being digital, they could've took a copy there and then. He had a computer, so can't see the problem.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

dmg24 wrote: »

You will not get an exemption from the WCA, but if you submit sufficient specialist evidence you may not need a medical.

Who do I submit the evidence to? Also what kind of evidence & from whom?

Why would I not qualify for exemption?

dmg24

the_devil_made_me_do_it wrote: »

I wanted to ask permission first Invalidation. Didn't want anymore complications than needs be.

Surely they could ask you to sign a comprehensive disclaimer that the recording will not be altered in any way or used for anything other than personal.

Also, mine being digital, they could've took a copy there and then. He had a computer, so can't see the problem.

They don't have time to take copies - if they did this for every claimant, imagine how much longer you could have been kept waiting.

A disclaimer works on trust. Unfortunately there are too many fraudulent claimants out there for this to work.

dmg24

the_devil_made_me_do_it wrote: »

Who do I submit the evidence to? Also what kind of evidence & from whom?

Why would I not qualify for exemption?

I submitted reports from an NHS psychiatrist, a private psychiatrist and my GP. Also my IB50 was very thorough.

You can send the evidence with your IB/ ESA50, or you can send it separately.

I am not sure whether you are claiming ESA or IB, but the threshold for the IB mental health exemption is very high and tends to be for people with complex conditions (bipolar, schizophrenia etc). For ESA there is not an equivalent exemption.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

& fraudulant assesors.

dmg24

the_devil_made_me_do_it wrote: »

& fraudulant assesors.

Be careful of saying something defamatory - I am not aware that any assessor has ever been found guilty of fraud, and whilst the system is far from perfect, there are certainly more fraudulent claimants than there are poor assessors.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

The problem is that, if there is only one recording of the medical, that recording can be doctored. There have been instances where a dual recording has been allowed, so they can have a copy too.

If you think about a police interview under caution, imagine the uproar there would be if the police did not allow the detainee a copy of the interview. This is the same principle, just the other way round.

There would be more uproar if the police did everything possible to stop suspects from having the interview recorded in the first place, lilke the DWP/ATOS have done for years.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

Be careful of saying something defamatory - I am not aware that any assessor has ever been found guilty of fraud, and whilst the system is far from perfect, there are certainly more fraudulent claimants than there are poor assessors.

I doubt that..

Last stats I came across indicated there were only 509 people prosecuted for Incapacity benefit fraud in 2006.

I have lost count of the number of people that report that the assessors lied on the report, or the report was ludicrous, nonsensical etc.

There are more tribunal cases won by claimaints each year than fraud cases surely, so it looks to me the number of poor assessors definately outweighs the number of fraudulent claimaints...

They are currently getting around 45 thousand ESA appeals per quarter now.... rough estimate assuming the numbers do not increase (which the almost certainly will) for a years worth would be to quadruple that figure (so lets say 180 thousand appeals a year).

If 40 percent are found to be in claimaints favour thats roughly 72 thousand poor assessments a year.

Projected fraud stats for IB/ESA are 0.5 percent fraud rate.
With say 2.6 million claimaints that works out at a projected thirteen thousand fraudulent claimaints if they were all caught.

So I make it there are approximately (72 thousand - 13 thousand) 59 thousand more poor assessments than their are fraudulent claimaints... going by rough available figures.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

dmg24 wrote: »

Be careful of saying something defamatory.

To be honest, at this moment in time, defamation is the last of my concerns. In fact it dosen't feature in my concerns at all.