ATOS Medical - failed, advice please?

FTW

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Agreed, but the point I was making is that many people think that if you have a disability, any disability, then that precludes being able to work and I was just pointing out that many disabled people can and do work.

My son's girlfriend has a disability, claims dla and works 30 hours a week.

Stephen Hawking has only just retired in his 70s!

Different disabilities affect different people in different ways - and everyone else is not Stephen Hawking.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Of course there are many disabilities which mean you can't work, but equally as many are no barrier to working. It depends what the disability is, and what the work is.

It is wrong to think 'disabled = cannot work'.

Never said it did equate to that. The general attitude displayed by this government - and the one before it - is that there is no disability. For political rather than human agendas, of course.

Uncertain

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It is wrong to think 'disabled = cannot work'.

I'm sure most people would agree with that.

It could be argued that anybody who is not actually in a coma could do some kind of work providing exactly the right task it put in front of them in a manageable way. What is the right task will of course depend on their level of education as well as their mental and physical health.

That is wonderful in theory until you look at the logistics of actually making it happen. People love to use Prof Hawking as an example. However, here we are talking about arguably one of the greatest minds that has ever lived trapped in a tragically disabled body. An organisation like Cambridge University (with over 10,000 staff) can accommodate someone like that. They can use his exceptional talent and provide the physical support that is needed.

However, if Prof Hawking had the same level of disability with only average mental abilities do you really think the same would be true?

seven-day-weekend

Uncertain wrote: »

I'm sure most people would agree with that.

It could be argued that anybody who is not actually in a coma could do some kind of work providing exactly the right task it put in front of them in a manageable way. What is the right task will of course depend on their level of education as well as their mental and physical health.

That is wonderful in theory until you look at the logistics of actually making it happen. People love to use Prof Hawking as an example. However, here we are talking about arguably one of the greatest minds that has ever lived trapped in a tragically disabled body. An organisation like Cambridge University (with over 10,000 staff) can accommodate someone like that. They can use his exceptional talent and provide the physical support that is needed.

However, if Prof Hawking had the same level of disability with only average mental abilities do you really think the same would be true?

I agree that Professor Hawkin's case is not the usual; I was using him as an example of how being disabled does not necessarily make it impossible to work. It depends on the disability and the job. Prof Hawkin's job depends upon using a part of him that is NOT disabled, his genius mind.

But the same is true for other people too. For example, my wheelchair user friend mentioned above, has nothing wrong with his brain or upper body. So he can use those to work. My blind friends have nothing wrong with their brain or other parts of their body, so they are able to use those to work.

I appreciate that if you have a fluctuating condition, or are in constant pain, ot have a disability that in other ways means you could not work, then sobeit. But the point I was making was simply that being disabled does not necessarily stop you working, in response to a poster who appeared puzzled that ATOS had found him/her both disabled and fit for work. I was merely trying to explain how that could indeed be the case.

Fred100

After my partner died a few months you can imagine the depression I went through and my doctor gave me loads of test and put me on medication and gave me a certificate for one month on the basis that he would see me twice a month because of my mental health.
I recently had a recent WDA and they concluded I was fit work. I showed this to my doctor and he went ballistic as he said they are only looking at the physical aspect and not the fact that I am to nervous to leave the house, am prone to not being aware of my surroundings and stopped me from driving.
They did not even seek any information from my doctor in any form what so ever
Since the decision I (like many others possibly) been researching this and it seems in most cases any one that appeals will win the appeal.

It does not help that now, I lose housing benefit etc and having wiped out any money I had paying off my partners debts, funeral etc I am in a situation with no income what so ever.

Sorry to ramble a bit on the thread but just wanted you to know you are not alone.

dmg24

FTW wrote: »

Or he has no obligation to be honest with them - they won't be, so why should he?

Besides, if they do, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if parts of pertinent recordings were 'damaged' or edited. They cannot be trusted to do it themselves.

You appear to be condoning fraud FTW. Can you confirm this?

FTW

dmg24 wrote: »

You appear to be condoning fraud FTW. Can you confirm this?

Fraud in what way? Who said anything about fraud?

Fred100

Hang on people, lets remember one thing that is a fact here... The assesment methods are up the creek (as we all agree) but the last thing we want is any negatives. I am sure none of us would be wanting to cause ourselves further grief by "commiting fraud"

I have learnt very quickly that in the appeal process you can (in your own words) dispute "what was said" and any tests that were not or were undertaken.

End of the day, your doctor and any othe professional services (OT etc) will fight you case for you if it is just and these are qualified to do so.

These forums are here to help people not cause further anguish for genuine people with sincere and real life changing problems

cit_k

FTW wrote: »

Or he has no obligation to be honest with them - they won't be, so why should he?

Besides, if they do, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if parts of pertinent recordings were 'damaged' or edited. They cannot be trusted to do it themselves.

they use a pro recording machine (although they were clueless on how to use it), it recorded three copies simultaneously, and one track (not been able to play it yet, not old fashioned tape player) is supposed to have a time reading on it.

You get one copy, ATOS another, i assume either a legal department or the DWP gets the other.

Course, pointless if they make you sign a document restricting the use of the tape, other than for appealing the disallowance decision.

So covertly record, so you can make complaints, and you can use the official one in a medical.

Also, a covert recording will capture what is said before the tape is switched on, and as you leave - remember the assessment starts before you even see the assessor, so they are not actually officially recording the entire assessment.

cit_k

Fred100 wrote: »

Hang on people, lets remember one thing that is a fact here... The assesment methods are up the creek (as we all agree) but the last thing we want is any negatives. I am sure none of us would be wanting to cause ourselves further grief by "commiting fraud"

I have learnt very quickly that in the appeal process you can (in your own words) dispute "what was said" and any tests that were not or were undertaken.

End of the day, your doctor and any othe professional services (OT etc) will fight you case for you if it is just and these are qualified to do so.

These forums are here to help people not cause further anguish for genuine people with sincere and real life changing problems

If you have a doctor that will get involved in fighting a benefit case for you, then you must be very very very lucky.

Most dont have the time to get involved, I would be suprised if most even knew the basics of welfare legislation anyway.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

You appear to be condoning fraud FTW. Can you confirm this?

I read it as no need to be honest and ask for a recording, do it covertly instead.

Personally, I would do both.