New disability test 'is a complete mess', says the man who designed it

snoopy89

Whilst the SoS may state that you are fit for work, they are not obliging you to take any particular position.

what absolute bull you are talking yet again, if people don't take a job within 12 months there moneys can be cut etc. second if the person was told to stop work, why should a 30 min interview with a box ticker overrule doctors and consultants its stupid. the quicker inside information gets out about the lies and bad service atos is giving the better. i also think its about time we all pushed and got this disgraceful company out of the uk.
oh are you also saying at a atos medical we just say no i am not bending over, lifting my arms etc, as its not good for me, if its sore or it hurts, on health and safety grounds, they will say you refused to try, where does that get you. in deep trouble no doubt.

never mind we all can bash ourselves or just let the government do it for us. and don't forget the government are also going to take 20% of the dla amount we get now when it changes to the new name.

what a crap world we live in. people have forgotten how to respect and care.:(

dmg24

snoopy89 wrote: »

Whilst the SoS may state that you are fit for work, they are not obliging you to take any particular position.

what absolute bull you are talking yet again, if people don't take a job within 12 months there moneys can be cut etc. second if the person was told to stop work, why should a 30 min interview with a box ticker overrule doctors and consultants its stupid. the quicker inside information gets out about the lies and bad service atos is giving the better. i also think its about time we all pushed and got this disgraceful company out of the uk.
oh are you also saying at a atos medical we just say no i am not bending over, lifting my arms etc, as its not good for me, if its sore or it hurts, on health and safety grounds, they will say you refused to try, where does that get you. in deep trouble no doubt.

never mind we all can bash ourselves or just let the government do it for us. and don't forget the government are also going to take 20% of the dla amount we get now when it changes to the new name.

what a crap world we live in. people have forgotten how to respect and care.:(

You are taking a lay viewpoint, and on the whole I do not disagree with you. The viewpoint I have given is how a court have seen it in previous cases relating to health and safety in the workplace. Hence back to my original point - an individual could not take on a case like this without some pretty big funding for legal bills.

snoopy89

thats why the disabled groups need to get together to fight what is going on. but they are hiding while founds are low.:( just were is the press and the help for us.

dmg24

snoopy89 wrote: »

thats why the disabled groups need to get together to fight what is going on. but they are hiding while founds are low.:( just were is the press and the help for us.

So I am not talking bull, am I? Tort Law goes back to Roman times, it is possibly the most engrained of all laws, I doubt that any charity would take it on. It would bankrupt them, whether they won or lost.

Trialia

Snoopy, that sounds a familiar scenario! I'm under orders from two of my therapists not to lean forward beyond 45 degrees as it causes my lumbar spine to attempt dislocation, but I doubt ATOS would listen to that - they do seem to like saying you refuse to do something... whereas okay, I'll do [X] for you because you'll say I refused if I tell you I'm not supposed to do that, but you'll have to take me to A&E afterwards to put [Y] joint back in place! Sigh.

I was lucky last time - the examiner could tell my pain level was high that day just from looking at me, and passed me quite easily, thankfully, but the stress of filling out all those forms is... it never goes away.

Invalidation

dmg24 wrote: »

The argument would be that you should not have put yourself in the position for causing harm to yourself/ others. So, if for instance you were unsteady on your feet, you should not be working in a role where this could cause danger. Furthermore there is the argument that adaptations should have been made to ensure that you were safe in your role, and that you should not have put yourself in that position until the adaptations were made. Whilst the SoS may state that you are fit for work, they are not obliging you to take any particular position.

Ultimately, responsibility for health and safety in the workplace remains with the individual. Even if the DWP were found liable, contributory negligence would come into play and cancel out any award.

I see your argument, but I would suggest, that, if a Doctor had stated you were unfit for work, but the DWP stated you were, then anything that you did could put you or others near you at a substantial risk of danger. Sitting, standing, moving, lifting, anything could worsen your condition, possibly seriously or even life threateningly, which would return one reason for legal action. The constant danger to others would be another. However, even if one could simply get a decision that the DWP were liable, that would be sufficient to throw the entire thing into chaos especially if say 40 or 50 people decided to take a class action.

Invalidation

dmg24 wrote: »

You are taking a lay viewpoint, and on the whole I do not disagree with you. The viewpoint I have given is how a court have seen it in previous cases relating to health and safety in the workplace. Hence back to my original point - an individual could not take on a case like this without some pretty big funding for legal bills.

But going back to my original point. If a medical practitioner and Consultant have stated you are not fit for work, and the DWP say you are but based on non medical grounds, then that is a Prima Facie case of negligence on their part and it also leaves them open for an ECHR case.
If it happens to me, I will take legal action as a LIP. Even if I have to be carried into court every day.

alfchild

It is hard like you all say why can Atos who do not know any of the medical case decide over a consultant or dr. I have had 2 stroke, hole in the heart and lupus, been told by my consultants I can't work, i had to stop work, then 2 month later Atos say I can and ask silly questions like do you think your medication is working??? I said I don't know I mean when its preventitive medicine how do I know all I know is my 2nd stroke was when I was taking asprin so got extra given. Even the man at the job centre says its stupid as even he knows I'd never work again (I'm 35) I have a carer. And to be honest nobody would employ me I'm too much ofa risk if they did and something happened who would be responsible.

I appologise for any spelling too.

cit_k

dmg24 wrote: »

It would certainly be an interesting case, however I think there would be difficulty establishing a duty of care, remoteness and causation. Unfortunately I would say that the legal resources required to pursue such a case would be beyond most individuals.

Im not sure on this, but also, before you can take things to court re benefits, dont you have to first go through ALL the tribunal processess, upper tribunal etc.

Ie to get something up before a supreme or human rights type court, you would first have to go through reconsideration stage, then tribunal, then upper tribunal, then local courts, then upper etc etc.

Any one know if that is the case for sure?

dark_lady

Be quicker to go to the press. The Daily Mirror and the Guardian are gunning for ATOS at the moment.