DLA doctors report

Diorak

I have been receiving higher rate care and mobility components for the past 4 years but had a review in april. For the review I had a doctor visit my home in June. They was supposed to come in April but cancelled on me 3 times.

When the doctor was here we went through all of my conditions (Lupus, Rheumatoid arthritis, IBS, Complete bladder retention, fractured spine and depression). The doctor seemed very nice and caring and was very sympathetic as I am bed bound.

I expected the report to go through without any problems but received a notice from the DLA to say that all my money has been stopped and I am not entitled to anything. I requested a copy of the doctors report which I received today and I cannot believe what she has written! She has stated that in her opinion she doesnt believe that I cannot walk, dress, or clean my self and that I am putting to much strain on my carers to do things for me when in her opinion I should be able to do things for myself. Although I cant get out of bed and walk she thinks in her opinion that I can walk for 60 minutes without any problems. I cant see how she can come to all of these WRONG conclusions.

Is there anything I can do about her report. Ive had two other doctors visit me in the past on previous reviews and they have both written accurate reports so I dont see how this doctor could be like this.

kaya

yes, contact the dwp and ask for the official complaints dept, tell them you wish to make an official compalint about atos, their incompetance and misconduct, tell them you are contacting your mp about this disgusting behaviour and tell the dwp to contact your consultant/specialist or gp for information about your condition, tell them you want a different decision maker to look at your case WHEN they have the evidence to support your claim from your specialist's

Anubis_2

Did you have anyone else present with you, and if so did they take any notes? Did you check the time she arrived and left and did this match on the report? I do know if you are completely bed bound and state so, they may take the mobility component away or reduce it as they have been know to take the view that if you are in bed 24/7 then you do not need mobility to help you get around outdoors ( which makes sense really)

I would have thought that your care needs would be apparent though. Are you appealing? You have two other doctors reports there that contradict this one, so you have something to work with.

fiendishly

Anubis, please don't confuse the mobility componant of DLA with Motobility. Not every wants to spend their DLA mobility on a Motobility car (I don't - I have a company car). Not being able to walk is the criteria for HRM, not whether or not you need a car

kaya

atos and the dwp are service providers, the taxpayer pays for them to provide that service, if you are unhappy with the service they provide COMPLAIN , but make sure you do it officially, i wouldnt even consider appealing against the decision, i would complain about the non existant service they are getting paid for from our taxes and the incompetance of the people who are supposed to provide it( i did , and contacted my MP, it got everything sorted to my satisfaction within two weeks), from what i hear atos may well be out on their rse next year when their contract is up for renewal, what worries me is what we will get instead!, im unsure what your exact health issues are but if you have medical reports from consultants/surgeons/specialists at your disposal that is all the documentry evidence you need to prove atos's incompetance and get the decision looked at again, good luck and try not to let this debarcle get you down, i know how depressing this process is but at the end of the day if you are entitled to the benefit you should get it, that swhat they are there for after all.

Anubis_2

fiendishly wrote: »

Anubis, please don't confuse the mobility componant of DLA with Motobility. Not every wants to spend their DLA mobility on a Motobility car (I don't - I have a company car). Not being able to walk is the criteria for HRM, not whether or not you need a car

The money is for getting around outdoors, nothing to do with a car - it is not for getting around indoors. It is well documented on several sites such as benefits and work that if you are 100 percent bedbound you ***may*** lose the HRM award.

I did use the term motability though, but meant mobility sorry, and have edited my post so as not to cause confusion.

fiendishly

Anubis wrote: »

It is well documented on several sites such as benefits and work that if you are 100 percent bedbound you ***may*** lose the HRM award.

QUOTE]
fair enough, I don't know about this (seems very unreasonable to me though, if this is the case - you can't walk so you get HRM, you really really can't walk, you don't :huh:)

but you can understand why your use of the term Motibility had the potential for confusion all round

ramsas

Anubis wrote: »

The money is for getting around outdoors, nothing to do with a car - it is not for getting around indoors. It is well documented on several sites such as benefits and work that if you are 100 percent bedbound you ***may*** lose the HRM award.

I did use the term motability though, but meant mobility sorry, and have edited my post so as not to cause confusion.

Sorry but your post regards mobility is without substance in my opinion,please supply links to substantiate your comments regards this..meantime i am seeking further clarification on this via DLA unit to clarify matters.

For the disability test for the higher rate DLA mobility component you must satisfy one of the following conditions:

be unable to walk
be virtually unable to walk
the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to your life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in your health
have had both legs amputated (or missing from birth) at or above the ankle
qualify for the highest rate of DLA care component, be severely mentally impaired and show disruptive behaviour.
be both blind and deaf and need the assistance of another person to walk out of doors.

if the exertion to walk would have detriment on the claimants health they qualify for mobility regardless of whether or not they are indoors or outdoors.