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

jetta_wales

Writing out envelopes at home for a living? Lol not the best example since it's one of the most well known work from scams around and there's plenty of companies willing to take your money off you in 'registration fee's.

victorias_dad

Even if you are declared fit for work who the hell would employ someone with a poor medical history or is legislation being brought in to outlaw potential employers asking for medical background and what would the consequences be to a claimant who was constantly turned down for employment on the strengh of there medical history its one thing to say you can work its another to tell an employer they have to give you a job

jetta_wales

victorias_dad wrote: »

Even if you are declared fit for work who the hell would employ someone with a poor medical history or is legislation being brought in to outlaw potential employers asking for medical background and what would the consequences be to a claimant who was constantly turned down for employment on the strengh of there medical history its one thing to say you can work its another to tell an employer they have to give you a job

There has been new legislation to allow people to ask for a guarantee'd interview so you can not be turned down without them even seeing you and just dissmissing the CV's that they think might be too much hasstle.

cit_k

sonorman wrote: »

Invalidation wrote: »

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 QUOTE]

I think you are missing one vital point here.

Your GP/Consultant is saying that you are not fit to go to work ie your normal work.

The DWP are saying that you are fit to do some type of work which may not be your normal work.

eg you may be a welder having spent 30 years in the job. You go sick and are found fit for work. You could possibly write out envelopes at home for a living.

No a fit note is signed to state you are to refrain from work.

it does not say, you must refrain from your usual occupation or your current type of work - its quite clear, its work full stop.

Invalidation

cit_k wrote: »

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?

That is the way it usually works. However there are always allowances made if a legal point can be proven. The main point of contention, on my part is, Atos using non specialised Doctors to assess someone and having a non medicvally qualified person at DWP making judgements based on that non specialist assessment. Its wrong, and I think even goes against the DWP and ATOS regulations.
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html

In my case I would refuse to be assessed by someone who was not a specialist in Orthopaedics and failed to check my past medical records and would suggest any Magistrate or Judge would back that up. I would also suspect (though I'm not 100% on it) that a court order could be obtained compelling ATOS to provide a specialist, if life changing financial decisions depended on their assessment.

My Doctor along with my medical History and an Orthopaedic Consultant have stated that I should not work. I put the opinion of a specialist over that of a Non Specialist.

It is ones basic human right that if decisions are to be made about, or relating to someones health then only a specialist in their respective field with full knowledge of the implications of sending someone back to work can make that decision.

Invalidation

daited wrote: »

Invalid, u r rong. u wud get nowere wiv that.

i tride too do same but thay said thay r the xpurts not yr docter.

Is there a translation for this?

cit_k

Invalidation wrote: »

That is the way it usually works. However there are always allowances made if a legal point can be proven. The main point of contention, on my part is, Atos using non specialised Doctors to assess someone and having a non medicvally qualified person at DWP making judgements based on that non specialist assessment. Its wrong, and I think even goes against the DWP and ATOS regulations.
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html

In my case I would refuse to be assessed by someone who was not a specialist in Orthopaedics and failed to check my past medical records and would suggest any Magistrate or Judge would back that up. I would also suspect (though I'm not 100% on it) that a court order could be obtained compelling ATOS to provide a specialist, if life changing financial decisions depended on their assessment.

My Doctor along with my medical History and an Orthopaedic Consultant have stated that I should not work. I put the opinion of a specialist over that of a Non Specialist.

It is ones basic human right that if decisions are to be made about, or relating to someones health then only a specialist in their respective field with full knowledge of the implications of sending someone back to work can make that decision.

I think a bigger problem is even if they do use a specialist in the correct field - all that persons knowledge and skills would be rendered completely useless by the fact they would have to be using the LIMA software.

LIMA would drag down a specialist to the level of a non specialist, non medically trained person.

WhiteHorse

Invalidation wrote: »

As I posted in another forum
What happens if DWP state you are OK to work. You get a job, have a serious accident and badly injure yourself or worse still someone else. The DWP could be considered responsible and I would even suggest legal action should be taken against the assesor.

Before starting work, turn up at the DWP with an indemnity document drawn up by a solicitor and invite them to sign it.

WhiteHorse

cit_k wrote: »

I think a bigger problem is even if they do use a specialist in the correct field - all that persons knowledge and skills would be rendered completely useless by the fact they would have to be using the LIMA software.

Ah, LIMA ...

Atos LIMA software distorts PCA results. LIMA's operation at odds with Law. Medical examiners discouraged from using descriptors not supplied by Atos. [Examples and quotes from Commissioners reports].
Source: Child Poverty Action Group: Welfare Rights Bulletin 189 Dec 2005.
www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb189/computer.htm

WhiteHorse

Invalidation wrote: »

... that would be sufficient to throw the entire thing into chaos especially if say 40 or 50 people decided to take a class action.

Setting the larger question aside, if a large number of people simply exercise their rights and appeal everything, then the system will quickly collapse under the strain.