Using CCTV evidence against Atos....

iluvmarmite

cit_k wrote: »

As said above, the medical does not concentrate on any real life work place stuff, and its more than one 'mistake' its not just the end time, its timings of how long they claimed the person could do other things, which rely on the exam taking longer than it really did.

As for being a mistake, considering for ESA 40 percent of tribunal decisions are found in favour of the claimaint, that says to me, there are to many mistakes for it to be anything other than deliberate.

Even worse under IB, where 60 to 70 percent of decisions were found in favour of the client at tribunal.

ESA was designed to fail more people both initially and at tribunal, hence why tribunal stats are worse for claimaints now.

Besides, if its a mistake, the nurse will admit to it surely when a complaint is lodged and the footage wont be required.

Except Im willing to bet, they wont.

Im willing to bet they will say it was a mistake, they will hardly turn round and say sorry I did it on purpose

DaisyChainMaker

Before the assessment where were you? Waiting perhaps? Sitting outside the interview room? Maybe the nurse made her assessment taking into account a bit of common sense. Claiming your father could sit in a chair for 40 minutes is a natural assessment to make if he sat in a chair for 30 mins in the assessment and taking into account that he would of sat in the waiting room, sit in a taxi on the way home etc

If an assessment form asks if a person can sit in a chair for 40 mins, then it is a natural assumption to state that yes they can if they have sat for 30 minutes infront of you isnt it? Maybe a bit of common sense is needed in such assessments due to time constraints made on the nurse. This is the nhs afterall and they have to fit in a number of appointments and write up their findings all within a set time scale. What is to be gained by watching someone sit in a chair for 40 mins? instead of only 30?

Assessments are made on this sort of scale all the time. Nurses do not do their jobs because they are vindictive, or for the money. Hell its a vocation.

Just because your father cannot speak English does not mean he cannot work. He was able to travel tot he hospital, wait for apointment, take his assesment, travel home again.... he isnt bedridden or incapable of moving, using his brain, etc. Okay so maybe he isnt capable of being a hodd carrier or manual work but he is capable of something, as capable as many other people who do work, even if it is only part time.

Cpt.Scarlet

DaisyChainMaker

If you actually bothered to read the thread you would see that the OP is claiming that the nurse has added 35 minutes to the examination time and that they specifically stated the claimant sat for 40 minutes during the medical, which would clearly be a problem if the whole medical only took 20 minutes.

Not the worst statement I have seen by an ATOS nurse/doctor, but it still rates.

DaisyChainMaker

Ive read it thank you.

I would also point out that NHS is under horrendous pressure and that allocated times are never enough. So maybe the nurse was under pressure and making the form fit the situation? When taking a pulse for example you only time it for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4. You record a pulse as xx beats per minute. But you dont physically sit there taking everyones pulse for a whole minute. Time restraints would not allow for this.

I was just offering a possible explanation. I still stand by my comments. If you can sit for 30 minutes, then you could sit for 40 minutes. As you sat in the waiting room? etc etc

All assessments are only a brief snapshot of your abilities. Many people are complaining that they are no longer entitled to benefits and are being labelled as fit for work when they dont feel they are. Unless you are severely incapacited and this is blatantly noticeable during an assessment (regardless of times) then you will be signed off as fit for work.

Not saying its right, just saying that is the way that it is.

What is to be gained by hounding a nurse over timings when it wont make any difference to the outcome? We dont know what went on during that assessment or how the forms were worded or answered. We only know what the OP is telling us. So I was just voicing my opinion for possible food for thought.

We all know of people who claim benefits and can't see why? I have a neighbour who hasnt worked for years and claims all the benefits, as is 'unfit for work' and yet he does everyones gardens round here and diy. I can't say he is fit for work just cos I see him doing these tasks, some days. Who knows what happened during his assessment and what he is like on days I don't see him.

Cpt.Scarlet

DaisyChainMaker wrote: »

Ive read it thank you.

I would also point out that NHS is under horrendous pressure and that allocated times are never enough. So maybe the nurse was under pressure and making the form fit the situation? When taking a pulse for example you only time it for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4. You record a pulse as xx beats per minute. But you dont physically sit there taking everyones pulse for a whole minute. Time restraints would not allow for this.

I was just offering a possible explanation. I still stand by my comments. If you can sit for 30 minutes, then you could sit for 40 minutes. As you sat in the waiting room? etc etc

All assessments are only a brief snapshot of your abilities. Many people are complaining that they are no longer entitled to benefits and are being labelled as fit for work when they dont feel they are. Unless you are severely incapacited and this is blatantly noticeable during an assessment (regardless of times) then you will be signed off as fit for work.

Not saying its right, just saying that is the way that it is.

What is to be gained by hounding a nurse over timings when it wont make any difference to the outcome? We dont know what went on during that assessment or how the forms were worded or answered. We only know what the OP is telling us. So I was just voicing my opinion for possible food for thought.

We all know of people who claim benefits and can't see why? I have a neighbour who hasnt worked for years and claims all the benefits, as is 'unfit for work' and yet he does everyones gardens round here and diy. I can't say he is fit for work just cos I see him doing these tasks, some days. Who knows what happened during his assessment and what he is like on days I don't see him.

First of all this is not the NHS, it is a private company that has been contracted by the DWP to carry out ESA assessments.

Secondly the difference between sitting for 30 minutes (or 20 as the OP claims) and 40 minutes is very different as it affects the number of points that might be given as a result. A point the OP made repeatably.

You clearly don't understand the system, "hounding" aside, the OP is appealing this decision and disproving this statement will aid them in proving their case and over-turning the decision, so it will make a difference to the outcome.

You seem to be very confused, on one hand you say that unless you are visibly severely disabled you should not expect benefits and on the other that we should not judge those who receiving them and do not appear to ibe ill.

cit_k

DaisyChainMaker wrote: »

Before the assessment where were you? Waiting perhaps? Sitting outside the interview room? Maybe the nurse made her assessment taking into account a bit of common sense. Claiming your father could sit in a chair for 40 minutes is a natural assessment to make if he sat in a chair for 30 mins in the assessment and taking into account that he would of sat in the waiting room, sit in a taxi on the way home etc

atos assessors are trained and instructed to make those type of observations and estimate how long they think someone could sit based on things like that.

However, it was clarified in the thread quite clearly, we are not talking about an opinion that they could sit for that lenght of time, the assessor wrote they DID sit for that length of time during the assessment.

Siting for x minutes then moving around then sitting again and so on is not the same as sitting for the full duration without having to get up.

It was stated as fact they sat for that length of time, which clearly they did not.

If an assessment form asks if a person can sit in a chair for 40 mins, then it is a natural assumption to state that yes they can if they have sat for 30 minutes infront of you isnt it?

Like I said, they can say that in their opinion they THINK the person is capable of it, but they cant do what they did and state as fact that they actually DID sit for 40 minutes when they did not.

Maybe a bit of common sense is needed in such assessments due to time constraints made on the nurse.

Expected average time for an assessment is 45 minutes, for some reason, the nurse cut this one short.
Quite possibly because they are paid per assessment, and the more they do, the more money they get in the bank.

[QUOTE
This is the nhs afterall [/QUOTE]

no its ATOS, private company paid 100 million + a year to just do these assessments for the dwp.

and they have to fit in a number of appointments and write up their findings all within a set time scale.

average time 45 mins, but there is no max time limit, they can go on for as long as they need.

What is to be gained by watching someone sit in a chair for 40 mins? instead of only 30?

Well if your going to state as fact they DID sit for X time, you better have witnessed that, or you are lying on a medical document and deserve the wrath of the regulatory body you are registered with.

Assessments are made on this sort of scale all the time. Nurses do not do their jobs because they are vindictive, or for the money. Hell its a vocation.

NHS nurses, nurses that *help* people, nurses that look after the sick, yes its a vocation for most.

But not for ATOS nurses IMO, they just operate a computer and can easily earn far more than the PM does just by doing these assessments, which do not require any medical skills in reality to do.

Just because your father cannot speak English does not mean he cannot work. He was able to travel tot he hospital, wait for apointment, take his assesment, travel home again.... he isnt bedridden or incapable of moving, using his brain, etc. Okay so maybe he isnt capable of being a hodd carrier or manual work but he is capable of something, as capable as many other people who do work, even if it is only part time.

What are your medical qualifications, how long have you worked for the DWP as a decision maker, and when did you examine him, or receive a copy of a medical examination for this person?

You can answer those surely, or you would not be saying something like someone you have never met is fit for work, when you are not qualified, nor in a position to be allowed to decide.

spherelance

DaisyChainMaker wrote: »

I still stand by my comments. If you can sit for 30 minutes, then you could sit for 40 minutes. As you sat in the waiting room? etc etc

How do you know they didn't have to get up every now and then to move about in the waiting room? I've had to do that in the past.

Also this if you can sit for 30 minutes you can sit for 40 is nonsense. Using your daft logic if you can run for 30 minutes you can run for 40 minutes.