Need help from any medical /legal experts regarding ESA fraud

sangie595

TheNickster wrote: »

The passive aggressive implication was there in my view. Your clarification is welcome.

That appears to be the kettle calling the pot black. Your response feels very aggressive to me.

sangie595

TheNickster wrote: »

So what you are really saying is that the OP should not even be applying for ESA even if he is in constant pain because you manage to work while being in constant pain.. Are you saying that the medication you take does not relieve the pain you say you are in while you are working?.

Strong pain killers come with a number of unpleasant side effects and opioids can be very addictive.

Pain comes with a number of unpleasant side effects too! Sometimes you have to make a choice. But being in pain does not mean that someone cannot work. And before you jump down my throat too - this is an observation based on personal experience of being in constant pain, taking drugs which include opioids, and working. Being in pain does not mean that you cannot work either, you know.

Dippy was talking about their own personal experience of disability and about the fact that the test for ESA is not about disability / sickness / drugs / or pain - it is about capability. None of those things means a person is incapable. Nobody has said that the OP should not apply for ESA. The OP isn't actually talking about "applying for ESA" - they are talking about being intent upon pursuing a criminal case against the assessor for fraud. In fact, contributors have made a great number of useful suggestions about how to reapply for the benefit, as well as suggesting that their energy might be better directed at some strategies which would massively improve their physical health - in the OP's case painkillers are not the only or best option, surgery is.

TELLIT01

sangie595 wrote: »

.....the fact that the test for ESA is not about disability / sickness / drugs / or pain - it is about capability....

Precisely. The clue is there in the name of the assessment. It's a Work CAPABILITY Assessment, not a Work Incapacity Assessment. The whole ethos of ESA is to determine what a person is capable of doing, even if that would potentially mean a complete change of work type. The example I generally use is that of a manual worker who develops a chronic back condition. That may prevent them continuing to do heavy manual work, but wouldn't prevent them working in an office or doing other lighter work. Whether or not they would be able to obtain work in those areas is another matter entirely.

TheNickster

sangie595 wrote: »

That appears to be the kettle calling the pot black. Your response feels very aggressive to me.

If his/her original post had been qualified in the first place by saying " It depends how your disability manifests itself." that they eventually said in a later post then I would not have thought it was "passive aggressive".

i am not usually an advocate of tit for tat but sometimes the general hostility that some have towards benefit claimants in general I find very irritating especially when unqualified.

TheNickster

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Precisely. The clue is there in the name of the assessment. It's a Work CAPABILITY Assessment, not a Work Incapacity Assessment. The whole ethos of ESA is to determine what a person is capable of doing, even if that would potentially mean a complete change of work type. The example I generally use is that of a manual worker who develops a chronic back condition. That may prevent them continuing to do heavy manual work, but wouldn't prevent them working in an office or doing other lighter work. Whether or not they would be able to obtain work in those areas is another matter entirely.

Yes that is the flaw in the system. Being able to get a job without relevant office work experience is more difficult and could take much longer than getting a manual labour job with manual labour experience.

Job opportunities for people with physical or mental health problems are far fewer than for (say) those without such problems. The current system does not appear to take that into account.

TheNickster

sangie595 wrote: »

Pain comes with a number of unpleasant side effects too! Sometimes you have to make a choice. But being in pain does not mean that someone cannot work. And before you jump down my throat too - this is an observation based on personal experience of being in constant pain, taking drugs which include opioids, and working. Being in pain does not mean that you cannot work either, you know.

Dippy was talking about their own personal experience of disability and about the fact that the test for ESA is not about disability / sickness / drugs / or pain - it is about capability. None of those things means a person is incapable. Nobody has said that the OP should not apply for ESA. The OP isn't actually talking about "applying for ESA" - they are talking about being intent upon pursuing a criminal case against the assessor for fraud. In fact, contributors have made a great number of useful suggestions about how to reapply for the benefit, as well as suggesting that their energy might be better directed at some strategies which would massively improve their physical health - in the OP's case painkillers are not the only or best option, surgery is.

Well I was not going to bring up my own personal experience of being in constant severe pain when I attempt to walk for longer than a few seconds. My experience is that my thoughts turn to relieving that pain as soon as possible. The advice I was given that for my own quality of life was not to walk too much and that heavy duty drugs may well mask some pain but would not only have some unpleasant side effects but would make me feel dopey (not helpful when working) and would not prevent further damage if I walked too much. I also worked full time for several decades and part time for the last few years before retirement despite being disabled (complications from poliomyelitis) since the age of nine months.

That is my personal experience of 66 years of disability that would have got worse a lot sooner had I had not taken the advice of my doctor.

sangie595

TheNickster wrote: »

Well I was not going to bring up my own personal experience of being in constant severe pain when I attempt to walk for longer than a few seconds. My experience is that my thoughts turn to relieving that pain as soon as possible. The advice I was given that for my own quality of life was not to walk too much and that heavy duty drugs may well mask some pain but would not only have some unpleasant side effects but would make me feel dopey (not helpful when working) and would not prevent further damage if I walked too much. I also worked full time for several decades and part time for the last few years before retirement despite being disabled (complications from poliomyelitis) since the age of nine months.

That is my personal experience of 66 years of disability that would have got worse a lot sooner had I had not taken the advice of my doctor.

Good, we are in total agreement. The OP's doctor has advised that only a hip replacement will eliminate the pain. That surgery has been refused, according to the OP, on the grounds of age, which, as the OP has been told, is not in accordance with current medical advice or experience - and so can be challenged. That is a fight worth having - the chance to reduce all or some of the pain is worth having, is it not? The OP has also been advised on how to go about appealing or re-applying for ESA - that would also be a fight worth having, don't you agree? Instead, the OP wants to have a fight about getting the HCP charged with criminal fraud or professional misconduct - neither of which, for reasons which have been explored to death over five pages, are going to happen.

I also took my doctors advice. I had the hip replacement two weeks ago and it is wonderful to have reduced one source of my pain. It won't get rid of all of it. Some of it is probably never going to be eliminated. No doubt like yours. But we have never been talking about whether the OP could work or should work. We have always been talking about whether the OP should take advice and pick battles that get them further forward, whether that is about getting benefit (if they are entitled to it) or the surgery they need. I think if you read the thread, you will see that is the case.

TheNickster

sangie595 wrote: »

Good, we are in total agreement. The OP's doctor has advised that only a hip replacement will eliminate the pain. That surgery has been refused, according to the OP, on the grounds of age, which, as the OP has been told, is not in accordance with current medical advice or experience - and so can be challenged. That is a fight worth having - the chance to reduce all or some of the pain is worth having, is it not? The OP has also been advised on how to go about appealing or re-applying for ESA - that would also be a fight worth having, don't you agree? Instead, the OP wants to have a fight about getting the HCP charged with criminal fraud or professional misconduct - neither of which, for reasons which have been explored to death over five pages, are going to happen.

I also took my doctors advice. I had the hip replacement two weeks ago and it is wonderful to have reduced one source of my pain. It won't get rid of all of it. Some of it is probably never going to be eliminated. No doubt like yours. But we have never been talking about whether the OP could work or should work. We have always been talking about whether the OP should take advice and pick battles that get them further forward, whether that is about getting benefit (if they are entitled to it) or the surgery they need. I think if you read the thread, you will see that is the case.

I had read the thread. before before my original reply and there was helpful advice but I do not see why anybody would say that lots of disabled people work if they did not think that the OP was trying to find excuses not to work. The OP was complaining that his MR was wrong and did not reflect the actual assessment.

I am disabled and worked full time but it it was not obvious to me that the OP was trying to avoid working he just felt unfairly treated.

Yes I may have over reacted but whenever someone says lots of disabled people work(actually a minority) without any qualification I immediately think (based on what is written by some on DT) their prime motivation is not the well being of the disabled person but of saving the government/tax payer money. Not only that it is the assumption by some that many disabled benefit claimants must be exaggerating therefore even if the WCA is flawed then imply that nothing should be done about it or made even worse. ( A variation on tit for tat)

Incidently in some ways you are lucky I have been told a hip replacement would be of no help to me and my walking difficulties..

Bananas123

the whole "argument" is redundant on the basis no 2 people are alike.

people saying "i have illness in my knees and can work" > good for you that you are working, this does not mean you know one iota regarding someone else though, you are bufoon for thinking so.

---

if you can't work, you apply for esa, if you can work, good, you will hopefully be earning much much more then esa, as you are able to work.

neither person knows !!!! about the other

-end-

dippy3103

And then some people can work with reasonable adjustments - I do.

Some people are fit for some jobs but not others. So many factors at play here. Hence the need for a WCA..