have you been for an ATOS medical?

cit_k

And lets look at a rather unfortunate fact, its highly unlikely IMO that ATOS or an assessor would ever launch a court case against a claimaint, for two reasons.

1 - Bad publicity for them.
2 - They would be up in court themselves to - and open to questioning about the whole procedure. I cant see them being happy about that...

Shame though, I would think many would love a day in court with ATOS...

snoopy89

i have read a thread that tells you what to do if you whant to recored the interview, i will dig it out as it is on another forum. if i remember the guy refused to go for medical unless he recoreded the interview as he was concerned about all the problems reported about the examiners and the medical. he was allowed to recored it. as he was awaiting the result.:)

snoopy89

How I got clearance to record my PCA interview.

First step - I included the following in the "Other information" section of my IB50 form:

"Whereas:

"The DWP, its agents or representatives, either wilfully and with malice aforethought or through neglect and dereliction of duty to the claimant, did grossly misrepresent my position in respect of a previous PCA;

"I therefore hereby give notice that I shall require clearance to record, verbatim, the proceedings at any such PCA or future equivalent as the DWP (or any successor body), its agents or representatives shall organise in time to come. This is the more necessary as the DWP have not seen fit to publish the LIMA software itself, so that its workings remain arcane and mysterious - as does the logic (if any) behind the questions it asks and the assumptions it makes."

Some months later, along comes an appointment letter from Atos' Nottingham office; it makes no specific mention of recording, neither granting nor witholding permission to record. In response to this, I write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, drawing to his attention the impact of Judge Wikely's remarks in CIB/3117/2008 on the legitimacy of the guidance agreed between the DWP and Atos, copying this letter to my own MP; I also send the following email to Atos' Customer Relations Department ([EMAIL="customer-relations@atoshealthcare.com"]customer-relations@atoshealthcare.com[/EMAIL]):

"<Name>
<Address>
<NI No.>

"Dear Sir

"I refer to your letter dated <date> concerning an appointment 'arranged for me' at <venue address> at <time and date of assessment>.

"I assume from your arrangement of this appointment, and the absence of any statement to the contrary, that all involved are content that I should make a verbatim audio recording of the proceedings, as advised by me to Atos and the DWP by means of a statement to that effect in the 'Other information' section of my returned form IB50 IB Questionnaire.

"If this is not the case, I would ask you to postpone the appointment until such time as this process is agreeable to all parties; it would be a waste of everybody's time if I were to arrive at an appointment with all prepared from my end, only to find that the Examining Medical Practitioner was unaware of the fact that he (or she) was to be recorded, and refused to co-operate.

"Indeed, if that person were to be unaware of this, it would seem to suggest that my returned form IB50 IB Questionnaire had not been treated with any degree of attention to detail - and if that detail were missed, how much else might have been overlooked or misinterpreted? I feel this is a question that any necessary appeal hearing might well wish to consider.

"Please confirm that the Medical Assessment may be recorded verbatim.

"A first class letter with this same text has been despatched, but will of course be later in arriving."

As noted in the body of the email, I also sent a letter to Atos' Nottingham office with substantially the same text. Though both offices were aware of my email address, both responded by post! The Nottingham office merely regurgitated substantially the same response as that which so frustrated the original poster, in addition to mentioning (twice) that I would be having a Work Capability Assessment in connection with my claim to Incapacity Benefit(!?); the Customer Relations response took much the same line, but advised me that I could get in contact with the Nottingham office in order to postpone the PCA in order to give me time to arrange everything that would meet their excessive requirements. I wasn't about to play that game - luckily, both letters had fax numbers on them, so time being of the essence, I faxed the Nottingham office the following message:

"<usual fax preamble - their address, my address, in this case my NI No. also>

"Subject: Verbatim recording of DWP Medical Assessment on <date>

"Sir:

"With reference to your letter to me, dated <date of letter>:

"You refer (twice) to an Employment Support Allowance examination being carried out in connection with my claim for Incapacity Benefit; please confirm that this is erroneous, as the relevant test is the IB85 Personal Capability Assessment (PCA), and all forms etc. sent to me previously have been preparatory to this. If the legal circumstances have changed and I am to be subject to the ESA85 Work Capability Assessment (WCA) despite being a claimant for Incapacity Benefit, then it surely follows that I should have been sent form ESA50 ESA Questionnaire rather than form IB50 IB Questionnaire.

"With reference to the matter of verbatim recording, I am in separate correspondence with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the matter of the present DWP/Atos guidance, though I have yet to receive a substantive response. As you will no doubt be aware, in CIB/3117/2008 Judge Wikely made several points against the present position, not least the rather obvious one that it goes beyond what the State requires of itself when the boot is on the other foot - neither the police, nor the DWP (at their own insistence) require either professional recording engineers at the time of recording nor professional calibration of the equipment immediately prior to the recording. A person competent to manage the equipment and a simple pre-recording test of correct function are all that any reasonable person (or organisation) would require.

"As I understand it, guidance is just that - guidance. It is not enforceable by law in any case, and the guidance at issue here is very much open to challenge in that it is unreasonable in the context in which it exists.

"It is reasonable to require two simultaneous original recordings be made, one for each party involved; it is not reasonable to insist on a two-deck recorder, as this is beyond the means of most claimants - two separate decks in good working order are all that is necessary to meet the requirement.

"It is reasonable to require that the operator of the equipment is a person fit and competent to carry out that function; it is not reasonable to require that they be a professonal recording engineer.

"It is reasonable to require that any equipment is demonstrated by its operator to be working correctly immediately prior to the recording being made; it is not reasonable to require that the equipment is 'calibrated by a professional engineer' immediately prior to the recording being made.

"It is reasonable to require that the equipment be of a standard adequate for the purpose; it is not reasonable to require the use of equipment 'of a high standard,' whatever that nebulous phrase may mean in law, if indeed it means anything at all. To the best of my knowledge, the PCA and WCA Mental Health Assessments consist of speech between the Examining Healthcare Professional (EHP) and the claimant; given the fact that intelligible speech is carried along telephone lines of restricted audio bandwidth, the frequency response of the recorders need be no better than that of a telephone line - though most recorders even of the cheapest type outperform this.

"Accordingly, I shall arrive for my assessment equipped with two separate sets of recording equipment of a standard adequate for the purpose for which I intend to use them;

"I shall demonstrate their correct functioning for the purposes required, immediately prior to the Medical Assessment proper;

"at the end of the Medical Assessment, I shall give one sealed tape to the EHP and obtain a receipt for it, retaining the other for my own purposes.

"Such purposes may include verifying the accuracy (or otherwise) of the resultant IB85 medical report, and any uses of the unedited tape or transcripts thereof in pursuit of any necessary appeal, or otherwise in the public interest.

"I believe that the above complies with the DWP/Atos guidance insofar as this is reasonable. It is out of my hands to arrange the prior consent of the EHP, and I would ask you to arrange this on my behalf.

"As time is of the essence, and my fax is set not to receive (to avoid 'junk' faxes), I would ask that any response be made by email in order to expedite matters; I do not answer the telephone willy-nilly (that is why my fax machine has a telephone answering function), so the only alternative to an email response is by letter.

"I am quite willing to proceed with the Medical Assessment under the wholly reasonable provisos I have set out above; I will not appreciate my being penalised for your (i.e. Atos') refusal to proceed.

"I look forward to your prompt response."

Relatively shortly after - as far as DWP/Atos' communication goes, that is - I received an email from Atos' Customer Relations people confirming that the EMP knew about my recording the PCA, implying that Atos as an organisation were content to proceed under the conditions I had outlined. This email mentioned one name for the EMP, and in the event I was seen by another person altogether, and the email did not confirm that I was facing a PCA rather than a WCA, so once again less than complete attention was paid to what I had said; notwithstanding this, I DID get to record my PCA.

I am a bit of an electronics buff; I have a couple of analogue cassette recorders of the "walkman" type that are in good order, and these were what I used; other people may not have such things available, but they may have friends or relatives who do. At least one of the machines must have a loudspeaker, for playback tests - if not, remember to bring some CLEAN headphones so that the EMP can confirm that the machines are recording as they should be. If you are going to proceed as I did (analogue cassette), use new batteries in everything (or arrange to use mains power where appropriate), and be sure to have enough tapes; I was concerned at one point that a C90 would not be enough, and I had only the two tapes - for the EHP and for me - so I would have felt more relaxed if I had had extra. Luckily, the C90 was adequate, though I did have to go to side 2! Keep an eye on when the tapes would need to be turned over, in order not to miss anything.

In principle, it should be possible to use digital recorders, or laptops; in practice, it may not be quite so straightforward. While it is true that in the digital domain a single machine would suffice, it would be necessary to give the EMP a copy of the captured audio file before leaving; this would have to be demonstrated as being the same filesize as the original audio file, and as containing the same audio - playing brief passages from the start and end of the copy, and of the original, should be enough to prove this.

For those who are unsure of their own ability to deal with the equipment - whether analogue or digital - AND the PCA/WCA/whatever, have a competent person accompany you and let them handle it. They do NOT need to be a professional recording engineer, but they DO need to know what they are doing, and they will need to demonstrate that as outlined in my fax (above).

I think it is the "two originals" aspect that swings it; to be fair to Atos - which feels odd, given that they are seldom fair to us - there is an important point in having two simultaneous master recordings of the conversation, or alternatively a complete copy produced immediately after the conclusion of recording and within sight of the EMP, in order to allow no editing or other tampering.

If only one physical medium of the recording exists, and you as the claimant hold it, the DWP/Atos could assert that it had been edited or otherwise modified, or at least they may raise the possibility that it had been; some might take the view this would render it little better than written notes, which as Judge Wikely observed in CIB/3117/2008 are open to challenge, and some tribunals may not admit it in evidence before them.

Yet if there are two physical media of the original recording (either two originals as in my case or the original and a true copy produced within sight of the EHP), with the DWP/Atos holding one and you as the claimant holding the other, with the recording having been made with the full knowledge and consent of Atos and the EHP, they cannot then object to such a recording (and/or transcripts thereof) being admitted in evidence at a tribunal, for the DWP/Atos could then verify the integrity of this evidence for themselves. I feel that this is a very important point indeed.

It was a frantic seven days. But for the use of email and fax, it might not have been possible to arrange everything satisfactorily in the time available; I suppose that I could have requested a postponement, had that been necessary.

So it can be done. It might not be as easy as we might like, but it need not be nearly as difficult or expensive as they would have us believe. Call their bluff on the letter of their requirements, but make sure you comply with the spirit behind them - as in my fax above - and you should have no problems.

Good luck to all! (hope this is ok to post)

steve_sona

I have had 3 of these medical assessments.
I have had a back condition for over 15 years,in march 2010 i had an operation to remove some of a prolapsed disc,after the operation the surgeon said he removed 85-90% of the disc & now have degenerative,extensive nerve damage.
the first 1 that i attended,i was due to go into hospital for the back operation,so was told that i would not have to carry out any of the tests that you are normally asked to carry out.
the 2nd assessment i had not long come out of hospital & was in a lot of pain, a receptionist noticed this & asked the doctor to see me asap,again, i was told that i would not be required to carry out the tests.

the 3rd assessment was the worst,i was unable to sit down due to my not being able to sit down for long.i went in to the nurses room & was asked if i could raise my legs in turn,bend to touch my knee,then i fainted,the nurse & my wife caught me & put me in a chair to recover,with a glass of water.the assessment was stopped. after about a week i received a copy of the report,i had asked for copies of all reports at my first assessment.
in the final report i was advised that i was unfit for employment. hasn't stopped me applying for jobs though as i want to work.

jules_m

I am currently researching on behalf of my wife who recently failed a medical for IB.
The software is heavily weighted to score you low It uses stock qnswers which are often taken out of context. When calculating your score it will ignore high scoring stock answers if there are any low scoring ones it can use instead.. check all the answers recorded in your assessment to see if any were not used but should have been.
Some useful links to give insight on these issues. Being a new user I am not allowed to post the link
go to the
1) disabilityalliance.org website and search for electronically-prepared IB85s
2) cpag.org.uk and search for The computer says no