PIP assessor

cantcope

Mine told me she was a paramedic when she introduced herself

seven-day-weekend

fluke13 wrote: »

Wow, love how some of you are so helpful.
I was simply asking what sort of background they are likely to have. An ex paramedic is likely to have a better understanding of medical conditions than a physio.
And as for my Lawyer or accountant I would already know that they are qualified to do the job because I would be employing them.

I didn't mean to be unhelpful, was just wondering why you would question their qualifications as they will all be trained medical professionals.

Ames

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I didn't mean to be unhelpful, was just wondering why you would question their qualifications as they will all be trained medical professionals.

But they won't be an expert in all medical conditions. If you know that they're not a specialist in your illness then you know not to use specialist jargon.

For instance, I had a GP appointment where I assumed he knew basic terminology about my illness, so I used that when I described my symptoms. He didn't know the meaning of the words I used and nearly prescribed completely the wrong medication.

So if, say, someone with mental health problems went for an assessment and it was with a physiotherapist, knowing that at the outset means that they'd explain their symptoms without using lots of technical terms that the assessor might not fully understand and wouldn't have time to clarify.

seven-day-weekend

I see, you are finding out whether they understand your respective condition, not questioning that they are fully trained.

In that case I think it would be relevant to ask if they have any experience in that field, which sounds to me somewhat better than questioning whether they have 'passed the exams'.

Alice_Holt

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I didn't mean to be unhelpful, was just wondering why you would question their qualifications as they will all be trained medical professionals.

Hmm...

You are obviously unaware of Judge Mark's comments in this Upper Tribunal ruling:
http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=3830

"Somewhat remarkably, considering that the claimant!!!8217;s problems were entirely mental ones, the disability analyst in question was, as I have noted, a registered physiotherapist, with no apparent professional expertise in mental health matters beyond what she may have gleaned from whatever training she was provided to become a disability analyst. The entire examination took 15 minutes and as usual the analyst had no access to the claimant!!!8217;s medical records."

"Where, however, the disability analyst is a physiotherapist and the problems she is dealing with are mental health problems the opinion of the physiotherapist as to the conclusions to be drawn have no probative value whatsoever. This is because the physiotherapist has no professional expertise in mental health matters......"

Your suggestion that you wouldn't ask a lawyer or accountant about their qualification to undertake a specific piece of work on your behalf is equally ludicrous.
If you wanted representation in a complex international case, you would be very foolish to instruct your High Street practice which specialises in conveyancing.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/11/how-do-i-decide-what-type-of-lawyer-i-want-to-be-trainee-solicitor

Equally, accountants have varying specialisations and additional qualifications i.e tax -
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/skills/which-tax-qualification-to-pursue

pmlindyloo

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Hmm...

You are obviously unaware of Judge Mark's comments in this Upper Tribunal ruling:
http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=3830

"Somewhat remarkably, considering that the claimant’s problems were entirely mental ones, the disability analyst in question was, as I have noted, a registered physiotherapist, with no apparent professional expertise in mental health matters beyond what she may have gleaned from whatever training she was provided to become a disability analyst. The entire examination took 15 minutes and as usual the analyst had no access to the claimant’s medical records."

"Where, however, the disability analyst is a physiotherapist and the problems she is dealing with are mental health problems the opinion of the physiotherapist as to the conclusions to be drawn have no probative value whatsoever. This is because the physiotherapist has no professional expertise in mental health matters......"

Your suggestion that you wouldn't ask a lawyer or accountant about their qualification to undertake a specific piece of work on your behalf is equally ludicrous.
If you wanted representation in a complex international case, you would be very foolish to trot up to instruct your High Street practice which specialises in conveyancing.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/11/how-do-i-decide-what-type-of-lawyer-i-want-to-be-trainee-solicitor

Equally, accountants have varying specialisations and additional qualifications i.e tax -
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/skills/which-tax-qualification-to-pursue

I find the bolded part very interesting particularly the 'as usual'.

Why is/was that?

My personal opinion is that medical evidence/information can be the key to a successful assessment.

The problem is that the application form suggests that you do not need to ask for any medical reports that you don't already have with the assumption that Atos/Capita/Maximus will contact your consultant/GP.

As often explained on this forum and elsewhere this rarely happens and claimants are urged to get the reports themselves.

With the percentage of decisions being overturned at tribunal there are suggestions/assumptions that this is due to a doctor being present on the panel? or that further evidence is produced by the claimant or medical records are requested by the tribunal.

However, for both PIP and ESA it is not the medical diagnosis that is important but how it affects your ability to work (ESA) or in the case of PIP....

The assessment for PIP looks at an individual’s ability to carry out a series of everyday activities. The assessment considers the overall impact of a claimant’s health condition or impairment on their functional ability, rather than focusing on a particular diagnosis. PIP is not a compensation payment for ill health / disability; it is to help people with the increased costs of daily living in cases of long term ill health or disability. PIP sits alongside support provided by the NHS and local authorities and is not meant to duplicate that support.

This why, I believe that many claimants may get the wrong decision from their assessment (I'm ignoring the fact that there are incompetent assessors. )

How can someone who has little experience of the affects of certain conditions understand how they affect the claimant?

Doctors often do not address how a condition affects the claimant
just merely stating the condition itself. Consultants are often better at this detailing how a condition presents itself. Every time a claimant attends an appointment at a hospital they should ask for that report to be copied to them which then can be used as evidence.

Similarly for mental health problems. We all know the lack of support for these around the country that is why I believe it is necessary to get the doctor to write that the claimant needs such and such although at this time no such treatment is available. The assessors appear to be obsessed that if you do not receive any input for your mental health problems (or indeed input for some physical problems) then they don't exist. Claimant's doctors need to write and say exactly what is happening in respect of your condition - whether treatment is necessary/whether nothing more can be done/whether no services are available at the moment/why certain medications haven't worked/why the claimant is not taking this or that (because of side effects for example).

Basically this is what a good welfare specialist would do when helping with an application/appeal. They document what descriptor the claimant meets and direct the assessor to the medical evidence for this.

Of course I have generalised with all of this. However, I do think we need to ask why so many decisions are overturned at tribunal and what is going in wrong. Is it only because there are bad assessors or are claimants not giving themselves the best chance of success by providing what is needed?

Unfortunately I can find little information on why claimants succeed at tribunal and not at assessment. My own experience is that claimants do not realise the need for evidence. Totally understandable because they know how their condition affects them. Unfortunately most assessors do not.

Alice_Holt

"The assessors appear to be obsessed that if you do not receive any input for your mental health problems (or indeed input for some physical problems) then they don't exist. Claimant's doctors need to write and say exactly what is happening in respect of your condition - whether treatment is necessary/whether nothing more can be done/whether no services are available at the moment/why certain medications haven't worked/why the claimant is not taking this or that (because of side effects for example)."

Totally agree, particularly for mental health.
It seems to be a common refrain from the DWP DM - "Claimant is not under the care of the Mental Health Trust, has not been referred to counselling, and is only on moderate medication therefore......."
I also feel that the MSE tests are wholly inadequate, and that's before we get to the "Claimant did not rock during the assessment and maintained good eye contact, etc" comments.
We even had one DWP evidence bundle which stated "Claimant has good rapport with his dog"!!!

"Basically this is what a good welfare specialist would do when helping with an application/appeal. They document what descriptor the claimant meets and direct the assessor to the medical evidence for this."
Unfortunately, many forms completed by the claimant themselves fail to explain their condition fully, and the impact on the activities / descriptors. Many claimants also misinterpret the descriptors (and what constitutes an aid for PIP), so often the form does not get to the required points. Making a negative decision by the DWP easier.

" I do think we need to ask why so many decisions are overturned at tribunal and what is going in wrong."
Totally agree.

Alice_Holt

Penitent wrote: »

I believe the usual reason for the decision being changed at Tribunal is more evidence. What the DWP often fail to note is that this additional evidence is usually oral (I'll add a link later if I can find it, about to go and get bits cut off, so can't look now. ). In other words, the Judges just listen to the claimants's own account, which the assessor should have done in the first place.

Spot on.

And the tribunal is very thorough, because they have to justify their decision by reference to the law and the evidence before them.

seven-day-weekend

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Hmm...

You are obviously unaware of Judge Mark's comments in this Upper Tribunal ruling:
http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=3830

"Somewhat remarkably, considering that the claimant!!!8217;s problems were entirely mental ones, the disability analyst in question was, as I have noted, a registered physiotherapist, with no apparent professional expertise in mental health matters beyond what she may have gleaned from whatever training she was provided to become a disability analyst. The entire examination took 15 minutes and as usual the analyst had no access to the claimant!!!8217;s medical records."

"Where, however, the disability analyst is a physiotherapist and the problems she is dealing with are mental health problems the opinion of the physiotherapist as to the conclusions to be drawn have no probative value whatsoever. This is because the physiotherapist has no professional expertise in mental health matters......"

Your suggestion that you wouldn't ask a lawyer or accountant about their qualification to undertake a specific piece of work on your behalf is equally ludicrous.
If you wanted representation in a complex international case, you would be very foolish to instruct your High Street practice which specialises in conveyancing.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/11/how-do-i-decide-what-type-of-lawyer-i-want-to-be-trainee-solicitor

Equally, accountants have varying specialisations and additional qualifications i.e tax -
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/skills/which-tax-qualification-to-pursue

I misunderstood and thought the OP meant for the assessor to show that they were a medical professional at all , whereas they actually meant to ascertain that they had the relevant expertise.

A bit like asking my solicitor if he had passed his law exams, not what field he specialised in.

Danday

Brilliant replies from both PM & Pen. The DWP as well as the government know full well that the main reason for a Tribunal to overturn a decision is down to evidence. Ironically as has been said, the majority of cases using 'new' evidence is that the claimant gives it orally at the hearing - hence why the reason more cases are overturned if you attend. Basically this oral evidence and questions on it should have happened at the assessment. Unfortunately this does not always happen. Be it that the assessor thinks that the claimant is overstating their problems or that the assessor just doesn't listen and is unable to question the claimant properly.
This is highlighted by the fact that the case you mention where a physio carried out the assessment with little or no knowledge of the real effects that a mental health causes whereas a doctor of many years of experience sitting on the panel is able to understand more and can effectively raise questions on the subject.
It is clear that the DWP instruct the claimant that they are NOT responsible for collecting physical written evidence to support their claim other than to send in what is to hand at the time. Slowly I am hearing suggestions from that the claimant SHOULD gather additional evidence but they simply cannot say that to the claimant at the moment. When PIP was agreed on by the Government, they made it clear (and through the subsequent reviews) that unlike DLA, it was down to the DWP and/or their agents to seek evidence in support of, or not, of the claim being made.
So without assessors not being of the right quality and the DWP not looking for further evidence nothing is going to change any time soon.