Ask Atos Healthcare disability assessment questions

schrodie

ianrobbie wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
I think we'll try re-applying based on her current problems, before this PIP kicks in.

I'll let you know how it goes. We're going to write a letter of complaint to ATOS as well, although I don't think it'll do much good.

EDIT - She actually attended the Tribunal herself, where they kept her waiting in the most uncomfortable chairs for about an hour before she was allowed in. Tried looking but couldn't see a camera..... ;-)

halight's advice is good. Contact the CAB, local welfare rights council dept etc. MP if sympathetic maybe a good idea, generally most tory MPs are not too keen on helping as welfare reform is their pride and joy! Also if Atos don't give a satisfactory response to your complaint consider taking the matter higher to the Independent Case Examiner.

Certainly get in before PIP kicks in.

Fridge3

isolation wrote: »

Lets say that I believe your figures. Isn't 1 in 20 an awful lot considered the large amounts of public money that these cost ? It annoys me to see my taxes wasted in this way.

My partner's claims have dragged on for 7&15 months and have cost an amazing amount of DWP money, MPs time and money, Advice worker time and money, ICE time and money and HM courts and Tribunals Service Money.

The ESA claim was described by the DWP as 'a catalogue of errors' - The ICE enquiry into the DLA claim is likely to produce the same - All ATOS reports have been declared not fit for purpose.

Her tribunal is in a week or so (12/2) and she is taking her "drama lesson" on Wednesday by having her bowels and rectum removed and has an 80% chance of survival following ATOS and the DWP stating that her specialist team have exaggerated her symptoms. Perhaps she is doing it to have a better chance at tribunal ?

In light of the above, I find your purile comments rather vile.

Dee
http://dwpnegligence.wordpress.com

They're not my figures, they're the official statistical releases but clearly you haven't let the facts get in the way of what you believe.

Of course if going to appeal most people in that small percentage will find some decent evidence to backup their claim that they didn't originally. Hardly surprising then that appeals sometimes overturn the original decision made without all the information.

Indeed; so much so a Ministry of justice ESA Appeal video evidences this very well when a third party introduces completely new material at appeal.

1.33 - "this video is about a fictional but TYPICAL appeal"
2.30-3.40 - indicative of claimant not having done very much to support their claim previously
4.00 - "send any ADDITIONAL evidence to them as soon as you can"
7.00 - panel hears from person speaking on claimants behalf...
7.10 - "Well it is his back, but it's what he's not telling you or the doctor who examined him
7.19 - Introduction of NEW information [depression] not associated with original claim which was for bad back.


It was another poster who introduced the notion of acting out symptoms so perhaps they'd be better placed to comment on the drama lesson.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_wca

Fridge3

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Posted on these boards - 02-06-2012, 12:10 AM- What we do know - ATOS & death

- government claims half of new claimants are found "fit to work"
- but forgets to mention that over 300,000 have appealed and almost 40% have won
- between January and August last year, 1,100 claimants died after they were put in the WRAG group
- this compares to 5,300 deaths of people who were put in the "support group"
- 1,600 people died before their assessment had been completed
- the assessment [ reduced payment ] should be completed in 13 weeks
- but 35,000 people suffer the reduced payment because they are waiting longer than 13 weeks

Atos carry out the WCA's as part of their £100million a year contract, Keith Wilman's nice 22% [£800.000] pay rise as a result of the £42million profit in 2010 makes me wonder how much extra he will earn this 2012 year as a result of the 2011 earnings. The firm made a £42million profit in 2010 and paid boss Keith Wilman £800,000, a 22% pay rise on the previous year .. .. nice one Keith !

With all these statistics and numbers its easy to forget every one is a human being. A human life .. .. .. gone forever. I accept that many would have died anyway, its called the mortality rate [ 6.5 deaths per 1000 ] but the number for the WRAG group [ 137 per 1000 ] is much higher than the national mortality rate. These islands proudly proclaim to be a welfare based society .. .. yeh ! right - of course it is !

NOTE: The mortality rate was for the general population, and that includes those who are of course over the age of 65 and would not be part of the WRAG group .. .. so draw your own conclusions.

You miss the point. You're trying to attribute those deaths to atos/wca/dwp decision. None of those are the cause of death, it's their condition that is the cause of death, not a WCA, or getting in a car, on a bus, going shopping or whatever else they may do whilst they have the condition.

Richie-from-the-Boro

For anyone who is

- mathematically challenged ?
- or having a head~in~the ~shed day ?
- or needs it spelling out ?
- the - national average is 6.5 deaths per 1000
- the - WRAG group average is 137 per 1000

It doesn't matter if any individual in either group is :

- fit or unfit
- sunbathing in eleven~a~riffe or at a family wedding
- asleep in front of the TV or lifting a heavy weight at the time of their demise

The only difference between the groups is the WRAG group has just been through the very scary mental process of torture and humiliation and been placed in the WRAG group.

Fridge3

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

For anyone who is

- mathematically challenged ?
- or having a head~in~the ~shed day ?
- or needs it spelling out ?
- the - national average is 6.5 deaths per 1000
- the - WRAG group average is 137 per 1000

It doesn't matter if any individual in either group is :

- fit or unfit
- sunbathing in eleven~a~riffe or at a family wedding
- asleep in front of the TV or lifting a heavy weight at the time of their demise

The only difference between the groups is the WRAG group has just been through the very scary mental process of torture and humiliation and been placed in the WRAG group.

All the reasons for death are attributable as below:





No causes attributed to very scary mental process, torture, humiliation and been placed in the WRAG group.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Fridge3 wrote: »

All the reasons for death are attributable as below:


~ edit out irrelevant graphic ~


No causes attributed to very scary mental process, torture, humiliation and been placed in the WRAG group.

As I said :

For anyone who is

- mathematically challenged ?
- or having a head~in~the ~shed day ?
- or needs it spelling out ?

Nice but meaningless [ly] pretty pictures of the sort a 6 year old would post to a friend. Nothing .. .. absolutely nothing to do with the subject, which was "relevant WRAG / non-WRAG mortality rates" your picture is irrelevant to the subject - but pretty.

Now look, if I've been hypnotised by your pretty picture and have missed which group in the picture are the WRAG group and what proportion of the UK population they form. Please tell me. Go on tell me where are the WRAG deaths in your graphic ?

Additionally, (1) if I can be of any assistance to on your understanding the difference between content and social comment when debating these figure I'll be happy to oblige, most rational people would not confuse the figures I gave .. .. with the social comment I made on the stress individuals undergo when completing a WCA. Now (2) it is clearly the case, last time I checked that being in the WRAG group is not of itself a primary cause of death, you might want to consider that fact before posting another pretty picture. Lastly (3) I'm not " trying to attribute those deaths to atos/wca/dwp decision" I'm giving facts and .. .. letting people think about those facts

Fridge3

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

As I said :

For anyone who is

- mathematically challenged ?
- or having a head~in~the ~shed day ?
- or needs it spelling out ?

Nice but meaningless [ly] pretty pictures of the sort a 6 year old would post to a friend. Nothing .. .. absolutely nothing to do with the subject, which was "relevant WRAG / non-WRAG mortality rates" your picture is irrelevant to the subject - but pretty.

Now look, if I've been hypnotised by your pretty picture and have missed which group in the picture are the WRAG group and what proportion of the UK population they form. Please tell me. Go on tell me where are the WRAG deaths in your graphic ?

Additionally, (1) if I can be of any assistance to on your understanding the difference between content and social comment when debating these figure I'll be happy to oblige, most rational people would not confuse the figures I gave .. .. with the social comment I made on the stress individuals undergo when completing a WCA. Now (2) it is clearly the case, last time I checked that being in the WRAG group is not of itself a primary cause of death, you might want to consider that fact before posting another pretty picture. Lastly (3) I'm not " trying to attribute those deaths to atos/wca/dwp decision" I'm giving facts and .. .. letting people think about those facts

They'd have (and die from) those conditions with or without esa, wrag, wca.

There are no wrags as cause of death, just details of what we die of and it's a fact we don't die of wrag. Glad you agree they aren't in there in the graphic. btw it's not my graphic, the source is at the bottom.

mazza111

So you think it's quite fair that these people who have died days/weeks after assessment have been treated fairly by ATOS?

Whether the blame lies with ATOS or not remains to be seen. But the stress that's caused when genuinely sick people are found fit for work is horrendous and until you've been through it yourself, you really don't have a clue.

Fridge3

mazza111 wrote: »

So you think it's quite fair that these people who have died days/weeks after assessment have been treated fairly by ATOS?

Whether the blame lies with ATOS or not remains to be seen. But the stress that's caused when genuinely sick people are found fit for work is horrendous and until you've been through it yourself, you really don't have a clue.

I didn't say it was fair or otherwise, just their deaths aren't attributable to wrag.

Many people also continue to work with diseases in most of those groups; it doesn't follow that their work killed them either.

People are often stressed by working when they'd rather not and remains to be seen if that's on a larger scale people being found fit for work when they'd rather not.

mazza111

Fridge3 wrote: »

I didn't say it was fair or otherwise, just their deaths aren't attributable to wrag.

Many people also continue to work with diseases in most of those groups; it doesn't follow that their work killed them either.

People are often stressed by working when they'd rather not and remains to be seen if that's on a larger scale people being found fit for work when they'd rather not.

Maybe so. I don't doubt there are some who may be fit for some work. But you don't think the amount of people who complain about the WCA that some may be right?

It seems that you can't accept that sometimes ATOS do get it wrong. And as I said before, unless you've been through it, you won't get it. I didn't believe there was so much BS in those reports until it happened to us. Thankfully this time they got it right, but after a hell of a lot of stress, and after being found fit for work. You don't think it's strange that one assessor can find someone fit for work (0 points) and the next assessor can put the same person straight into support group?

Now don't get me wrong. I do believe in assessments for people claiming sickness or disability benefits. I do not think the WCA fits the bill, nor do I think ATOS are capable of performing fair and honest testing.

Tell me something. If ATOS told lies about you in an assessment, would you have any faith in them?