DWP told doctor to stop medical certificates

deadlightbulb

It's a standardised letter sent to the GP though, rather than the patient. In my friend's case, the doctor never gave her a physical copy of the letter which might have happened to everyone else as well. I'll ask my friend to get a print out of it from the GP if they are willing so I can type up what it all says. Dunno when that could happen though, so if anyone else could beforehand then that'd be great.

wayne0

my last fit note changed...

my doctor put that i MAY be fit for work.. but listed lots of reasons that made me unfit for work...
"excessive standing/movement..." "require regular and sufficient rest breaks" etc

although my doctor has told me to try and remain as active as possible, she has also told me not to over do it...

im guessing that she may have had some of these letters (in regards to others?)? - although my dr gave me even more pain killers this time (appears that my body is becoming accustomed to the codeine and therefore its less effective...

i took the note to my employer (who seemed very egar to get me working 40 hrs a week again - in the same conditions) so i made it clear that my pain killers have a simular effect as being "p*$$ed out of my face" (company handbook makes it clear anybody who is / appears intoxicated will not be allowed to work - so as to ensure both their own and other peoples safety in the dangerous environment) - so im still off work... sadly there isnt a suitable role at work for me.

satarical

wayne0 wrote: »

my last fit note changed...

my doctor put that i MAY be fit for work.. but listed lots of reasons that made me unfit for work...
"excessive standing/movement..." "require regular and sufficient rest breaks" etc

That is as it should be. If you are found fit for work by the DWP it would be ridiculous and totally wrong for a GP to enter anything else other than what is shown on your sick note.

The GP is accepting and agreeing with the DWP that you are NOT too ill to work.

What the GP has said is that you MAY be fit for work, provided that suitable conditions of employment are offered.
Which is a lot different to what the GP used to say - 'refrain from work'.

The difficulties arising on this thread seem to come from a GP stating on the new sick note that the patient is too ill to do any type of work which is ridiculous given the DWP decision. If a sicknote is issued with that comment then yes the GP is attempting to over rule the DWP decision in order that you can continue to claim ESA. The GP is over stepping his mark as he/she is not qualified in assessing anybody's ability to do any type of work. That is the job of an OT or the DWP in this case. Hence that is why they changed the MED3 so that it follows on from the ESA assessment carried out by ATOS.

bbsband

satarical wrote: »

Not really, it seems that the DWP are just reminding GP's that are continuing to issue sicknotes that the claimant has been found fit for work and that GP's are not qualified to assess anybody in accordance with the rules of ESA - only ATOS can assess that way.

breaking mse rules again! not helpful but vindictive !!

Mrs_Arcanum

satarical wrote: »

That is as it should be. If you are found fit for work by the DWP it would be ridiculous and totally wrong for a GP to enter anything else other than what is shown on your sick note.

The GP is accepting and agreeing with the DWP that you are NOT too ill to work.

What the GP has said is that you MAY be fit for work, provided that suitable conditions of employment are offered.
Which is a lot different to what the GP used to say - 'refrain from work'.

The difficulties arising on this thread seem to come from a GP stating on the new sick note that the patient is too ill to do any type of work which is ridiculous given the DWP decision. If a sicknote is issued with that comment then yes the GP is attempting to over rule the DWP decision in order that you can continue to claim ESA. The GP is over stepping his mark as he/she is not qualified in assessing anybody's ability to do any type of work. That is the job of an OT or the DWP in this case. Hence that is why they changed the MED3 so that it follows on from the ESA assessment carried out by ATOS.

However, this clearly does not allow for DWP/Atos decisions to STILL be medically wrong. So Doctors have to behave ethically and continue to sign the person off sick, if in their belief they are unable to perform any work.

The fact that the DWP/Atos decision would expect someone to operate a checkout because they can move their arms, makes no allowance for the person being unable to get to the supermarket in the first place due to other medical problems. Also completely disregarding how much support they would need whilst they were there. Not sure any supermarket would employ two people just to do half a job.

satarical

bbsband wrote: »

breaking mse rules again! not helpful but vindictive !!

I'm becomeing bored with comments like that about the postings I am making.

What rule have I broken?

Not really, it seems that the DWP are just reminding GP's that are continuing to issue sicknotes that the claimant has been found fit for work and that GP's are not qualified to assess anybody in accordance with the rules of ESA - only ATOS can assess that way.

I don't see anything in that post that is vindictive.

Instead of me wasting anymore time with you, maybe you could point out the offending items that are not true. If I have missed something I will apologise. But what I have said is the reality of what the truth is.

GP's are not qualified to assess anybody as regards the regulations and descriptors that make up ESA. Their primary and only role is to treat or provide access to treatment for a condition or illness. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what you think GP's should be doing - assessing patients as to whether they are able to carry out any or all of the work focused functions that are part and parcel of ESA. If you beleive that GP's should carry out that role then they should be trained in disability medicine and probably qualify as an OT as well.

john539

satarical wrote: »

That is as it should be. If you are found fit for work by the DWP it would be ridiculous and totally wrong for a GP to enter anything else other than what is shown on your sick note.

The GP is accepting and agreeing with the DWP that you are NOT too ill to work.

What the GP has said is that you MAY be fit for work, provided that suitable conditions of employment are offered.
Which is a lot different to what the GP used to say - 'refrain from work'.

The difficulties arising on this thread seem to come from a GP stating on the new sick note that the patient is too ill to do any type of work which is ridiculous given the DWP decision. If a sicknote is issued with that comment then yes the GP is attempting to over rule the DWP decision in order that you can continue to claim ESA. The GP is over stepping his mark as he/she is not qualified in assessing anybody's ability to do any type of work. That is the job of an OT or the DWP in this case. Hence that is why they changed the MED3 so that it follows on from the ESA assessment carried out by ATOS.

This is all wonderfully theoretical & a game of chirades & semantics, as most will not get work.

But it keeps a political ideology happy.

bbsband

DUTR wrote: »

Having read the 1st post and some of the earlier replies, I think some of you have got it WRONG, how can the GP decide if someone is able to do a specific job or not? The GP would have to know the ins and outs of what's involved with the role in question, and unless they are specialising in occupational health then yes the DWP are more than likely correct that the GP is assisting a fraudulant claim.
Sorry

the GP is the master in this not the servant as the DWP are.Master as in qualified.....this whole thing is a part of the plan to get people off benefits nothing more nothing less..

bbsband

satarical wrote: »

I'm becomeing bored with comments like that about the postings I am making.

What rule have I broken?



I don't see anything in that post that is vindictive.

Instead of me wasting anymore time with you, maybe you could point out the offending items that are not true. If I have missed something I will apologise. But what I have said is the reality of what the truth is.

GP's are not qualified to assess anybody as regards the regulations and descriptors that make up ESA. Their primary and only role is to treat or provide access to treatment for a condition or illness. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what you think GP's should be doing - assessing patients as to whether they are able to carry out any or all of the work focused functions that are part and parcel of ESA. If you beleive that GP's should carry out that role then they should be trained in disability medicine and probably qualify as an OT as well.

''showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt''
Yes you are vindictive...
you are no help to this forum and the people who use it because you believe ATOS is above a qualified GP-Go away you idiot

missapril75

bbsband wrote: »

..you believe ATOS is above a qualified GP-Go away you idiot

That wasn't my impression. Morality issues aside, I thought it was simply pointed out that for benefit purposes ATOS has some legal authority while a GP doesn't.

We don't have to agree but that is the legal position isn't it?