They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I 
think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.

I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of June.

On 21 Aug, 13:25, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of June.

Is it a particular problem? I was under the impression you were
receiving the benefit in the meantime.

Martin  <><

Niteawk wrote:
> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I 
> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
> 
> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of June.

I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the 
papers to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them to 
go past this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there 
are probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority 
list for the JC.

Mike

On 21 Aug, 15:16, Mike 
wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
> > They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> > think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> > I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of June.
>
> I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the
> papers to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them to
> go past this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there
> are probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority
> list for the JC.
>
> Mike

So still within the target then.

I've worked on new benefits before, they all took a while to bed down
properly (DLA was a couple of years) and start meeting reasonable
targets.

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 15:16, Mike 
> wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
>>> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of June.
>> I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the
>> papers to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them to
>> go past this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there
>> are probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority
>> list for the JC.
>>
>> Mike
> 
> So still within the target then.
> 
> I've worked on new benefits before, they all took a while to bed down
> properly (DLA was a couple of years) and start meeting reasonable
> targets.
> 
> Martin  <><

True - the law gets tested & caselaw is established however this is all 
against a background of chaos in JC trying to cope with the recession.

Mike

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:

> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
> 
> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> June.

You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be the 
same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error.

AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's 
something that needs to go to tribunal.  And yes, you have to wait for 
the DM to have another look before you get to tribunal.

Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to work 
schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked 
off benefits. :/

On 22 Aug, 00:19, onearm  wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 퍝, Niteawk wrote:
> > They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> > think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> > I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> > June.
>
> You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be the
> same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error.
>
> AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's
> something that needs to go to tribunal.  And yes, you have to wait for
> the DM to have another look before you get to tribunal.
>
> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to work
> schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked
> off benefits. :/

Your disability is defined by not working?
Most are defined independantly of work - I'm disabled whether I'm on
benefits or working, though to be fair to my employer they do make big
allowances for what my disability prevents me doing.
Might want to check into what can be done for you without impacting
benefits.

Working tax credits, if disabled and qualifying, can make a difference
too.

Martin  <><

"onearm"  wrote in message 
news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>
>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
>> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>
>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
>> June.
>
> You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be the
> same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error.

How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with their 
scam medical system?


No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the person 
who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he qualified. 
How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a room in a 
Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this quack is 
qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All questions I will 
require answers to in due course.



>
> AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's
> something that needs to go to tribunal.  .
>

Exactly, they will stick by their original decision no matter what, that's 
why I cant understand why it is taking so long. There is nothing for them to 
do other than to pass it on to TS.



> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to work
> schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked
> off benefits. :/

How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the hell 
can they kick you off benefits for attending?

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:h6ma73$1gk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Niteawk wrote:
>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I 
>> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>
>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of 
>> June.
>
> I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the papers 
> to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them to go past 
> this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there are 
> probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority list 
> for the JC.
>

It has nothing to do with the JC.

On 22 Aug, 11:56, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> news:h6ma73$1gk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
> >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> >> June.
>
> > I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the papers
> > to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them to go past
> > this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there are
> > probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority list
> > for the JC.
>
> It has nothing to do with the JC.

Where is this DM then?

Martin  <><

On 22 Aug, 11:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "onearm"  wrote in message
>
> news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 퍝, Niteawk wrote:
>
> >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. I
> >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> >> June.
>
> > You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be the
> > same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error> How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with their
> scam medical system?
>
> No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the person
> who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he qualified.
> How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a room in a
> Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this quack is
> qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All questions I will
> require answers to in due course.
>
>
>
> > AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's
> > something that needs to go to tribunal.  .
>
> Exactly, they will stick by their original decision no matter what, that's
> why I cant understand why it is taking so long. There is nothing for them to
> do other than to pass it on to TS.
>
> > Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to work
> > schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked
> > off benefits. :/
>
> How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the hell
> can they kick you off benefits for attending?

Does the doctor have a surgery? Not all doctors do - some are employed
by organisations to do something other than have people come into a
surgery.
Did you ask this doctor if he was qualified? Did you ask how long he
had been practising in the UK (not that it matters once he has
qualified)?

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:05dbf532-9041-4e32-bd0b-9deae52a9086@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Aug, 11:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "onearm"  wrote in message
>
> news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>
> >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. 
> >> I
> >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> >> June.
>
> > You don't care about the DM decision. That will almost certainly be the
> > same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error.
>
> How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with 
> their
> scam medical system?
>
> No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the person
> who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he 
> qualified.
> How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a room in a
> Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this quack is
> qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All questions I will
> require answers to in due course.
>
>
>
> > AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's
> > something that needs to go to tribunal. .
>
> Exactly, they will stick by their original decision no matter what, that's
> why I cant understand why it is taking so long. There is nothing for them 
> to
> do other than to pass it on to TS.
>
> > Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to 
> > work
> > schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked
> > off benefits. :/
>
> How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the hell
> can they kick you off benefits for attending?

Does the doctor have a surgery? Not all doctors do - some are employed
by organisations to do something other than have people come into a
surgery.
Did you ask this doctor if he was qualified? Did you ask how long he
had been practising in the UK (not that it matters once he has
qualified)?

Martin  <>

>>>>>>>

Knowing the way our government operates, using students to diagnose people 
over the phone for eg, it matters to me to see if this quack has the 
relevant and valid qualifications.

wrote in message 
news:4e889998-7fc1-4ab1-a14e-3256f661f273@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Aug, 11:56, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> news:h6ma73$1gk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
> >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime. 
> >> I
> >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> >> June.
>
> > I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the 
> > papers
> > to the appeals service is 90 days. It's not uncommon for them to go past
> > this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there are
> > probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority 
> > list
> > for the JC.
>
> It has nothing to do with the JC.

Where is this DM then?

Martin  <><

Not sure exactly, but it is not being dealt with by my local JC.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
> news:h6ma73$1gk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this 
>>> regime. I think the new ESA points system is generating to much work 
>>> for them.
>>>
>>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of 
>>> June.
>>
>> I beleive the target for the JC DM to review the decion and get the 
>> papers to the appeals service is 90 days.  It's not uncommon for them 
>> to go past this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books 
>> there are probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the 
>> priority list for the JC.
>>
> 
> It has nothing to do with the JC.

Apologies, JobCentre Plus to use it's full title is one organisation it 
includes the Jobcentres themselves and the Benefit Delivery Centres. 
The pressures I speak of affect the whole of JCP.

Mike

On 22 Aug, 13:21, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:4e889998-7fc1-4ab1-a14e-3256f661f273@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Aug, 11:56, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> >news:h6ma73$1gk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > Niteawk wrote:
> > >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime.
> > >> I
> > >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> > >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> > >> June.
>
> > > I beleive the target for the KC DM to review the decion and get the
> > > papers
> > > to the appeals service is 90 days. It's not uncommon for them to go past
> > > this, also with all flood of people coming onto the books there are
> > > probably far more appeals and appeals are prob way down the priority
> > > list
> > > for the JC.
>
> > It has nothing to do with the JC.
>
> Where is this DM then?
>
> Martin  <><
>
> Not sure exactly, but it is not being dealt with by my local JC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Many things are dealt with at processing centres that can be quite a
distance from the local JC. Doesn't make them nothing to do with the
JC.

Martin  <><

On 22 Aug, 13:21, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:05dbf532-9041-4e32-bd0b-9deae52a9086@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Aug, 11:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "onearm"  wrote in message
>
> >news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>
> > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 퍝, Niteawk wrote:
>
> > >> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime.
> > >> I
> > >> think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>
> > >> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
> > >> June.
>
> > > You don't care about the DM decision. That will almost certainly be the
> > > same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge error.
>
> > How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with
> > their
> > scam medical system?
>
> > No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the person
> > who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he
> > qualified.
> > How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a room in a
> > Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this quack is
> > qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All questions I will
> > require answers to in due course.
>
> > > AIUI you're disputing the doctor's points allocation, and that's
> > > something that needs to go to tribunal. .
>
> > Exactly, they will stick by their original decision no matter what, that's
> > why I cant understand why it is taking so long. There is nothing for them
> > to
> > do other than to pass it on to TS.
>
> > > Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
> > > work
> > > schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get kicked
> > > off benefits. :/
>
> > How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the hell
> > can they kick you off benefits for attending?
>
> Does the doctor have a surgery? Not all doctors do - some are employed
> by organisations to do something other than have people come into a
> surgery.
> Did you ask this doctor if he was qualified? Did you ask how long he
> had been practising in the UK (not that it matters once he has
> qualified)?
>
> Martin  <>
>
>
>
> Knowing the way our government operates, using students to diagnose people
> over the phone for eg, it matters to me to see if this quack has the
> relevant and valid qualifications.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So did you ask about his qualifications at the time?

Martin  <><

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:29:18 -0700, mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 00:19, onearm  wrote:

>> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
>> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get
>> kicked off benefits. :/
> 
> Your disability is defined by not working?

No, but being able to participate in the back-to-work scheme is used as 
evidence of lack of disability.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:51:01 +0100, Niteawk wrote:

> "onearm"  wrote in message
> news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>>
>>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime.
>>> I think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>>
>>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
>>> June.
>>
>> You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be
>> the same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge
>> error.
> 
> How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with
> their scam medical system?

If the Dr said you had 25 points, and the DM mis-read it and said you had 
5 points and stopped your benefits.

> No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the
> person who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he
> qualified. How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a
> room in a Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this
> quack is qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All
> questions I will require answers to in due course.

uh, Good Luck going to tribunal with those questions.

[snip]

>> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
>> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get
>> kicked off benefits. :/
> 
> How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the
> hell can they kick you off benefits for attending?

You have enough confidence / rationality / motivation to attend the 
scheme means you don't score enough points when they do the medical, 
which means you stop getting IB, which means they kick you out of that 
scheme.

I almost always wear shirts with collars.  I discovered that the 
independent doctor had taken a few points off because I'd worn a shirt to 
the medical.

onearm wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:51:01 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
> 
>> "onearm"  wrote in message
>> news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>>>
>>>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime.
>>>> I think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>>>
>>>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
>>>> June.
>>> You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be
>>> the same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge
>>> error.
>> How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with
>> their scam medical system?
> 
> If the Dr said you had 25 points, and the DM mis-read it and said you had 
> 5 points and stopped your benefits.

The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with 
reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other information 
to hand.

> 
>> No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the
>> person who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he
>> qualified. How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a
>> room in a Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this
>> quack is qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All
>> questions I will require answers to in due course.
> 
> uh, Good Luck going to tribunal with those questions.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
>>> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get
>>> kicked off benefits. :/
>> How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the
>> hell can they kick you off benefits for attending?
> 
> You have enough confidence / rationality / motivation to attend the 
> scheme means you don't score enough points when they do the medical, 
> which means you stop getting IB, which means they kick you out of that 
> scheme.
> 
> I almost always wear shirts with collars.  I discovered that the 
> independent doctor had taken a few points off because I'd worn a shirt to 
> the medical.

Again, impossible as the Doctor doesn't award points. And you mentioned 
IB - it's a different (and stricter) regime that Niteawk is referring to 
as it relates to the new ESA benefit. The new assessment measures 
different things for people with mental health problems

Under your IB assessment an examining Doctor may have written you 
appeared well presented at your assessment (in fact, the doctor most 
likely would have if you had indicated you suffered from something such 
as depression) - at one time, under IB (but not ESA) an additional point 
or two could be awarded where a person with mental health problems did 
not take care in his or her appearance, hence many people would turn up 
for the medical unshaven, stinking of alcohol and dressed scruffily. 
Going well scrubbed and well dressed could have meant no extra points in 
the relevant mental health descriptor dealing with depression etc but 
the DM, not the examining doctor, would have decided that. And points 
wouldn't have been taken off - they just wouldn't have been added on, 
which is not the same thing.

On 22 Aug, 23:39, onearm  wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:29:18 -0700, mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 22 Aug, 00:19, onearm  wrote:
> >> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
> >> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get
> >> kicked off benefits. :/
>
> > Your disability is defined by not working?
>
> No, but being able to participate in the back-to-work scheme is used as
> evidence of lack of disability.

Now that is rather odd.

You'd think they'd accept the disability discrimination act definition
of a disability, which has nothing to do with work or non-work.

Martin  <><

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:57:29 -0700, mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 23:39, onearm  wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:29:18 -0700, mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On 22 Aug, 00:19, onearm  wrote:
>> >> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
>> >> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and
>> >> get kicked off benefits. :/
>>
>> > Your disability is defined by not working?
>>
>> No, but being able to participate in the back-to-work scheme is used as
>> evidence of lack of disability.
> 
> Now that is rather odd.
> 
> You'd think they'd accept the disability discrimination act definition
> of a disability, which has nothing to do with work or non-work.

In this case "they" are the DWP, who use their own set of indicators.

On 23 Aug, 11:02, onearm  wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:57:29 -0700, mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 22 Aug, 23:39, onearm  wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:29:18 -0700, mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On 22 Aug, 00:19, onearm  wrote:
> >> >> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
> >> >> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and
> >> >> get kicked off benefits. :/
>
> >> > Your disability is defined by not working?
>
> >> No, but being able to participate in the back-to-work scheme is used as
> >> evidence of lack of disability.
>
> > Now that is rather odd.
>
> > You'd think they'd accept the disability discrimination act definition
> > of a disability, which has nothing to do with work or non-work.
>
> In this case "they" are the DWP, who use their own set of indicators.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They will also have to use the law of the land too.
For such things as working tax credits, the disability element is
quite specific but doesn't in any way make someone not disabled who
doesn't meet it. Just not qualifying for disability payment.
Same with benefits - their criteria can be restrictive but don't
define who is and is not disabled. Merely who can get the benefit.

Martin  <><

"Robbie"  wrote in message
news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...

> The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
> reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other information
> to hand.
>

I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or on 
behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume that the 
examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a medical 
assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no medical 
qualifications.

"onearm"  wrote in message 
news:Qw_jm.240983$Di1.216888@newsfe12.ams2...
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:51:01 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>
>> "onearm"  wrote in message
>> news:GXFjm.223545$m%4.181681@newsfe25.ams2...
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:25:48 +0100, Niteawk wrote:
>>>
>>>> They must have a mountain of appeals to get through under this regime.
>>>> I think the new ESA points system is generating to much work for them.
>>>>
>>>> I am still waiting for a DM to make a decision since the beginning of
>>>> June.
>>>
>>> You don't care about the DM decision.  That will almost certainly be
>>> the same as the existing decision, unless the previous DM made a huge
>>> error.
>>
>> How can the DM be accused of making an error when the fault lies with
>> their scam medical system?
>
> If the Dr said you had 25 points, and the DM mis-read it and said you had
> 5 points and stopped your benefits.
>
>> No actual examination took place, I dont even know the name of the
>> person who conducted the alleged medical, if he was qualified, where he
>> qualified. How long has he been practicing in the UK. Since when is a
>> room in a Jobcentre deemed adequate for conducting medicals, if this
>> quack is qualified, why was I not asked to attend his surgery. All
>> questions I will require answers to in due course.
>
> uh, Good Luck going to tribunal with those questions.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Frustrating that if I'm disabled I'm eligible for specialist back to
>>> work schemes, but as soon as I do those I'm no longer disabled and get
>>> kicked off benefits. :/
>>
>> How do you become fit by attending schemes for disabled, and how the
>> hell can they kick you off benefits for attending?
>
> You have enough confidence / rationality / motivation to attend the
> scheme means you don't score enough points when they do the medical,
> which means you stop getting IB, which means they kick you out of that
> scheme.
>
> I almost always wear shirts with collars.  I discovered that the
> independent doctor had taken a few points off because I'd worn a shirt to
> the medical.

You do a very good impression of someone from another planet. Shirt or no 
shirt, that has got to be worth a few extra points ;)

On 24 Aug, 12:32, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
> > reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other information
> > to hand.
>
> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or on
> behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume that the
> examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a medical
> assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no medical
> qualifications.

What people are led to believe that? I certainly wasn't led to believe
it.
A DM making decisions? Surely a hell of a lot cheaper than getting a
doctor to make administrative decisions.

Funny really, for many years now people have had medicals for various
benefits, compensation, insurance and claims against others. And
decisions not made by people with medical qualifications. Instead
decisions made by adjudication officers, decision makers, underwriters
and judges.
Did you complain about that anytime in the last 30+ years? Or do you
only complain about it now, when it suddenly might be to your
disadvantage?

A medical assessment doesn't in any way mean that someone else can't
make a decision about entitlement. No-one is asking them to make
medical decisions, just administrative ones.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:2f2c04a5-58a0-4e42-ab03-ed37088cfa76@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Aug, 12:32, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
>> > reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other 
>> > information
>> > to hand.
>>
>> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or 
>> on
>> behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume that 
>> the
>> examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a medical
>> assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no medical
>> qualifications.
>
> What people are led to believe that? I certainly wasn't led to believe
> it.
> A DM making decisions? Surely a hell of a lot cheaper than getting a
> doctor to make administrative decisions.
>
> Funny really, for many years now people have had medicals for various
> benefits, compensation, insurance and claims against others. And
> decisions not made by people with medical qualifications. Instead
> decisions made by adjudication officers, decision makers, underwriters
> and judges.
> Did you complain about that anytime in the last 30+ years? Or do you
> only complain about it now, when it suddenly might be to your
> disadvantage?
>
> A medical assessment doesn't in any way mean that someone else can't
> make a decision about entitlement. No-one is asking them to make
> medical decisions, just administrative ones.
>
> Martin  <><

WTF are you on about! what happened 30+ years ago? try to stick to the here 
and now fool. This is what people like me has to put up with when forced to 
attend the likes of A4e, mandatory sham courses run by nut cases like 
Martin.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
>> reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other information
>> to hand.
>>
> 
> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or 
> on behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume 
> that the examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a 
> medical assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no 
> medical qualifications.

In a way I agree but in a way I can see why the final say shouldn't rest 
with a doctor. The doctor is supposed to compile a factual report which 
is based around the descriptors in the test that the DM awards points 
for. The DM then uses the report of the doctor to award the points, or 
not award, as the case may be. The alternative would be to have 
medically qualified DMs but that would be a rather expensive way of 
administering the benefit. The report of the doctor should be clear 
enough to "guide" the DM to the appropriate set of points. In practice, 
sometimes DMs have to second guess a doctor and this is one area that 
can (and does) lead to decisions being overturned upon review without an 
appeal having to go forward. Sometimes the doctor can be so wide of the 
mark in his or her observations that you can be left wondering if they 
actually ever examined the person at all. In the past doctors often 
wrote up reports in batches, working from notes from medicals that often 
took place days earlier, and sometimes were found wanting. The new 
electronic version of the report that the doctor completes is supposed 
to eliminate inconsistencies and ensure a report is completed that is 
clear to the DM in order to lead to consistent DM determinations. In 
practice, the system is still found wanting.

When you get your appeal papers you'll see how it works in practice with 
the report of the doctor and the relevant decision of the DM that uses 
that report to turn the observations of the doctor into points.

On 12 points I still think you'll get your decision overturned at 
appeal. A bit of tweaking in one area (get 9 points instead of 6) and 
you'll be OK.

On 24 Aug, 13:52, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:2f2c04a5-58a0-4e42-ab03-ed37088cfa76@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 Aug, 12:32, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
> >> > reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other
> >> > information
> >> > to hand.
>
> >> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or
> >> on
> >> behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume that
> >> the
> >> examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a medical
> >> assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no medical
> >> qualifications.
>
> > What people are led to believe that? I certainly wasn't led to believe
> > it.
> > A DM making decisions? Surely a hell of a lot cheaper than getting a
> > doctor to make administrative decisions.
>
> > Funny really, for many years now people have had medicals for various
> > benefits, compensation, insurance and claims against others. And
> > decisions not made by people with medical qualifications. Instead
> > decisions made by adjudication officers, decision makers, underwriters
> > and judges.
> > Did you complain about that anytime in the last 30 years? Or do you
> > only complain about it now, when it suddenly might be to your
> > disadvantage?
>
> > A medical assessment doesn't in any way mean that someone else can't
> > make a decision about entitlement. No-one is asking them to make
> > medical decisions, just administrative ones.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> WTF are you on about! what happened 30 years ago? try to stick to the here
> and now fool. This is what people like me has to put up with when forced to
> attend the likes of A4e, mandatory sham courses run by nut cases like
> Martin.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are complaining about non-medically trained people making
decisions yet they've been doing it in our society for decades.
For medical decisions yes I'd agree you need medically trained people.
But decisions about points, decisions about benefits are
ADMINISTRATIVE decisions.

Martin  <><

On 24 Aug, 13:55, Robbie  wrote:
<snipped>
>
> On 12 points I still think you'll get your decision overturned at
> appeal. A bit of tweaking in one area (get 9 points instead of 6) and
> you'll be OK.

Or could go the other way and get less points.

I'd agree its possible to get the decision overturned. Would it be bad
if a tribunal had a copy of his posts on here about why he was doing
all this......?  :)

Martin  <><

"Robbie"  wrote in message
news:7ffgtkF2l72qtU1@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
>>> reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other information
>>> to hand.
>>>
>>
>> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or
>> on behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume
>> that the examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a
>> medical assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no
>> medical qualifications.
>
> In a way I agree but in a way I can see why the final say shouldn't rest
> with a doctor. The doctor is supposed to compile a factual report.

And I cant see why it does not rest with the Dr. as s/he is the one doing 
the assessment and filing the report. Wouldnt  hurt for them to award a few 
points + or - while they are at it.


which is
> based around the descriptors in the test that the DM awards points for.

And who decides what descriptors are used, the DWP? In theory, I have been 
declared unfit by 2 GP's only for some numpty to come along, who has no 
medical training at all, to decide the outcome.


> The DM then uses the report of the doctor to award the points, or not
> award, as the case may be. The alternative would be to have medically
> qualified DMs but that would be a rather expensive way of administering
> the benefit.

I dont think it is a matter of expense. They are paying GP's to report, let 
them get on with it. Then all a DM has to do is file the report. This is one 
of the points I am going to raise if I have to go to tribunal. I cant see 
how someone with no medical training can argue with 2 GP's.


The report of the doctor should be clear enough to "guide"
> the DM to the appropriate set of points. In practice, sometimes DMs have
> to second guess a doctor and this is one area that can (and does) lead to
> decisions being overturned upon review without an appeal having to go
> forward. Sometimes the doctor can be so wide of the mark in his or her
> observations that you can be left wondering if they actually ever examined
> the person at all. In the past doctors often wrote up reports in batches,
> working from notes from medicals that often took place days earlier, and
> sometimes were found wanting. The new electronic version of the report
> that the doctor completes is supposed to eliminate inconsistencies and
> ensure a report is completed that is clear to the DM in order to lead to
> consistent DM determinations. In practice, the system is still found
> wanting.

Wanting indeed, sounds like this system is totally unreliable, and a 
complete waste of time. What they should do if money really is the issue, 
which I cant see how it can be as we own the Royal Mint, is accept my 
doctors letter and medical certs as proof. Then there would be no need for 
all this BS with DWP GP's and DM's and tribunals.

>
> When you get your appeal papers you'll see how it works in practice with
> the report of the doctor and the relevant decision of the DM that uses
> that report to turn the observations of the doctor into points.

Yes, that is what I would like to see as well, the DWP doctors report about 
me. We still have not received a copy of that.

>
> On 12 points I still think you'll get your decision overturned at appeal.
> A bit of tweaking in one area (get 9 points instead of 6) and you'll be
> OK.

As it is taking them so long time round, I think it might not get to TS.
If it goes to tribunal, I have 3 reports from seperate medical experts to 
submit. I assume their medically unqualified DM will not be attending the 
hearing ;)

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> news:7ffgtkF2l72qtU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>
>>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
>>>> reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other 
>>>> information
>>>> to hand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like or
>>> on behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume
>>> that the examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having a
>>> medical assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no
>>> medical qualifications.
>>
>> In a way I agree but in a way I can see why the final say shouldn't rest
>> with a doctor. The doctor is supposed to compile a factual report.
> 
> And I cant see why it does not rest with the Dr. as s/he is the one 
> doing the assessment and filing the report. Wouldnt  hurt for them to 
> award a few points + or - while they are at it.

The doctor (from now on I'm going to refer to the examining doctor as 
EMP - examining medical practitioner as the DWP used to call them, and 
probably still do -to save confusion with other doctors / GPs etc) is 
there to provide a factual report, not make an assessment on a claim to 
benefit. The awarding (or otherwise) of points and subsequently benefit 
is an administrative, not medical, exercise and is therefore a function 
of the DM not the EMP.

> 
> 
> which is
>> based around the descriptors in the test that the DM awards points for.
> 
> And who decides what descriptors are used, the DWP? In theory, I have 
> been declared unfit by 2 GP's only for some numpty to come along, who 
> has no medical training at all, to decide the outcome.

The DWP. The DWP in all its various guises over the years (DWP, DSS, 
DHSS etc) have always devised the medical descriptors for the 
examination. It's an aid to making an administrative decision on a 
factual medical test.

Who are the two GPs who have declared you unfit? Your GP is one, 
presumably, who is the other? It certainly isn't the EMP as that isn't 
the function of that particular doctor.

> 
>> The DM then uses the report of the doctor to award the points, or not
>> award, as the case may be. The alternative would be to have medically
>> qualified DMs but that would be a rather expensive way of administering
>> the benefit.
> 
> I dont think it is a matter of expense. They are paying GP's to report, 
> let them get on with it. Then all a DM has to do is file the report. 
> This is one of the points I am going to raise if I have to go to 
> tribunal. I cant see how someone with no medical training can argue with 
> 2 GP's.

Why would a DM just have to file a report and do nothing else? They 
wouldn't be a DM then but a filing clerk. Surely the clue is in the name 
  - a "decision maker", formerly called the Adjudication Officer and 
prior to that the Insurance Officer. The name, like the name of the DWP, 
has changed over the years but the role hasn't.

This has been the way the system has been administered back to the start 
of the modern benefit system in 1948. The EMP does the examination and 
writes up a factual report. The DM makes an assessment of entitlement to 
benefit based on that report with reference to the descriptors as laid 
down by the DWP. Good luck arguing against the system but there are 
sufficient Commissioners Decisions (case law) developed over the decades 
that back up the system.

Again, your focus is all over the place. You only get an hour max at a 
tribunal hearing. Trying to argue about everything will get you nowhere 
fast. You might get it all off your chest but you will not impress the 
tribunal, who will have heard it all before. Concentrate on your health 
problems, the mental health descriptors in the Work Capability 
Assessment - the mental health descriptors can be found at 
http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/wr_esadescriptorslcwmental

  and how your mental health problems fit into the descriptors that 
attract 9 not 6 points. Your case worker at the CAB or whatever should 
be advising you of this. Get your GP, and any other person involved in 
your medical treatment, to back up why you should be in a higher point 
band. Seriously, you need to focus on getting your points increased and 
forget all the other stuff you keep coming out with.


> 
> The report of the doctor should be clear enough to "guide"
>> the DM to the appropriate set of points. In practice, sometimes DMs have
>> to second guess a doctor and this is one area that can (and does) lead to
>> decisions being overturned upon review without an appeal having to go
>> forward. Sometimes the doctor can be so wide of the mark in his or her
>> observations that you can be left wondering if they actually ever 
>> examined
>> the person at all. In the past doctors often wrote up reports in batches,
>> working from notes from medicals that often took place days earlier, and
>> sometimes were found wanting. The new electronic version of the report
>> that the doctor completes is supposed to eliminate inconsistencies and
>> ensure a report is completed that is clear to the DM in order to lead to
>> consistent DM determinations. In practice, the system is still found
>> wanting.
> 
> Wanting indeed, sounds like this system is totally unreliable, and a 
> complete waste of time. What they should do if money really is the 
> issue, which I cant see how it can be as we own the Royal Mint, is 
> accept my doctors letter and medical certs as proof. Then there would be 
> no need for all this BS with DWP GP's and DM's and tribunals.

>>
>> When you get your appeal papers you'll see how it works in practice with
>> the report of the doctor and the relevant decision of the DM that uses
>> that report to turn the observations of the doctor into points.
> 
> Yes, that is what I would like to see as well, the DWP doctors report 
> about me. We still have not received a copy of that.
> 
>>
>> On 12 points I still think you'll get your decision overturned at appeal.
>> A bit of tweaking in one area (get 9 points instead of 6) and you'll be
>> OK.
> 
> As it is taking them so long time round, I think it might not get to TS.
> If it goes to tribunal, I have 3 reports from seperate medical experts 
> to submit. I assume their medically unqualified DM will not be attending 
> the hearing ;)

DMs do get some medical training, of the type that is necessary for 
making a decision on a benefit claim. If you had health insurance at an 
insurance company do you really think it's a doctor who makes a 
decision? No, it's the equivalent of a decision maker. The DWP model, 
back to 1948 (and before that - back to the first sickness benefits in 
1911 in fact) was based on how insurance matters were dealt with by 
insurance companies, friendly societies etc. Decisions on payment for 
all these organisations were, and still are, made by staff employed by 
the company and not by medical practitioners. The medical practitioner 
would never make a decision to pay health insurance. In some companies 
they are called claims assessors. In the DWP they are called Decision 
Makers.

The DWP usually (though not always) send a Presenting Officer from the 
Appeals section to present an appeal. The DM will already have made a 
relevant submission - of which you get a copy, it's called the appeal 
papers, and has no need to attend.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:7fgq46F2l6mhvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>> news:7ffgtkF2l72qtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>>>> news:7fbec8F2j0eh5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> The Examining Doctor doesn't award points, that is done by the DM with
>>>>> reference to the Doctor's completed assessment and any other 
>>>>> information
>>>>> to hand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find this difficult to believe but not surprising, a DM acting like 
>>>> or
>>>> on behalf of a doctor. People are led to believe and naturally assume
>>>> that the examing doctor awards the points. There is no point in having 
>>>> a
>>>> medical assessment when the final say is left to someone who has no
>>>> medical qualifications.
>>>
>>> In a way I agree but in a way I can see why the final say shouldn't rest
>>> with a doctor. The doctor is supposed to compile a factual report.
>>
>> And I cant see why it does not rest with the Dr. as s/he is the one doing 
>> the assessment and filing the report. Wouldnt  hurt for them to award a 
>> few points + or - while they are at it.
>
> The doctor (from now on I'm going to refer to the examining doctor as 
> EMP - examining medical practitioner as the DWP used to call them, and 
> probably still do -to save confusion with other doctors / GPs etc) is 
> there to provide a factual report, not make an assessment on a claim to 
> benefit. The awarding (or otherwise) of points and subsequently benefit is 
> an administrative, not medical, exercise and is therefore a function of 
> the DM not the EMP.
>

I can see the point of this now, but it leaves a very large gap that is not 
explained, for eg how the DM decides to score the assessment. I think the DM 
should also make a report explaining why some points were awarded and not 
others for the same descriptors.



>>
>>
>> which is
>>> based around the descriptors in the test that the DM awards points for.
>>
>> And who decides what descriptors are used, the DWP? In theory, I have 
>> been declared unfit by 2 GP's only for some numpty to come along, who has 
>> no medical training at all, to decide the outcome.
>
> The DWP. The DWP in all its various guises over the years (DWP, DSS, DHSS 
> etc) have always devised the medical descriptors for the examination. It's 
> an aid to making an administrative decision on a factual medical test.
>
> Who are the two GPs who have declared you unfit? Your GP is one, 
> presumably, who is the other? It certainly isn't the EMP as that isn't the 
> function of that particular doctor.
>

The EMP must have said something for me to get 12 points, if I was declared 
fit by the EMP, I would have 0 points.




>>
>>> The DM then uses the report of the doctor to award the points, or not
>>> award, as the case may be. The alternative would be to have medically
>>> qualified DMs but that would be a rather expensive way of administering
>>> the benefit.
>>
>> I dont think it is a matter of expense. They are paying GP's to report, 
>> let them get on with it. Then all a DM has to do is file the report. This 
>> is one of the points I am going to raise if I have to go to tribunal. I 
>> cant see how someone with no medical training can argue with 2 GP's.
>
> Why would a DM just have to file a report and do nothing else? They 
> wouldn't be a DM then but a filing clerk. Surely the clue is in the name - 
> a "decision maker", formerly called the Adjudication Officer and prior to 
> that the Insurance Officer. The name, like the name of the DWP, has 
> changed over the years but the role hasn't.
>

As I have already said, why not accept my GP's assessment, let them score 
that if they want something to do.



> This has been the way the system has been administered back to the start 
> of the modern benefit system in 1948. The EMP does the examination and 
> writes up a factual report. The DM makes an assessment of entitlement to 
> benefit based on that report with reference to the descriptors as laid 
> down by the DWP. Good luck arguing against the system but there are 
> sufficient Commissioners Decisions (case law) developed over the decades 
> that back up the system.

I will leave it up to my legal adviser to do the arguing.

>
> Again, your focus is all over the place. You only get an hour max at a 
> tribunal hearing. Trying to argue about everything will get you nowhere 
> fast. You might get it all off your chest but you will not impress the 
> tribunal, who will have heard it all before. Concentrate on your health 
> problems, the mental health descriptors in the Work Capability 
> Assessment - the mental health descriptors can be found at 
> http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/wr_esadescriptorslcwmental
>
>  and how your mental health problems fit into the descriptors that attract 
> 9 not 6 points. Your case worker at the CAB or whatever should be advising 
> you of this. Get your GP, and any other person involved in your medical 
> treatment, to back up why you should be in a higher point band. Seriously, 
> you need to focus on getting your points increased and forget all the 
> other stuff you keep coming out with.
>

I am not going to say anything at the hearing if I can help it, hopefully I 
might not have to go. Just send them my GP's report along with my legal 
advisers letters, that should be enough for them to make a decision. Its no 
good asking me questions, I know fuck all about law




>>
>> The report of the doctor should be clear enough to "guide"
>>> the DM to the appropriate set of points. In practice, sometimes DMs have
>>> to second guess a doctor and this is one area that can (and does) lead 
>>> to
>>> decisions being overturned upon review without an appeal having to go
>>> forward. Sometimes the doctor can be so wide of the mark in his or her
>>> observations that you can be left wondering if they actually ever 
>>> examined
>>> the person at all. In the past doctors often wrote up reports in 
>>> batches,
>>> working from notes from medicals that often took place days earlier, and
>>> sometimes were found wanting. The new electronic version of the report
>>> that the doctor completes is supposed to eliminate inconsistencies and
>>> ensure a report is completed that is clear to the DM in order to lead to
>>> consistent DM determinations. In practice, the system is still found
>>> wanting.
>>
>> Wanting indeed, sounds like this system is totally unreliable, and a 
>> complete waste of time. What they should do if money really is the issue, 
>> which I cant see how it can be as we own the Royal Mint, is accept my 
>> doctors letter and medical certs as proof. Then there would be no need 
>> for all this BS with DWP GP's and DM's and tribunals.
>
>>>
>>> When you get your appeal papers you'll see how it works in practice with
>>> the report of the doctor and the relevant decision of the DM that uses
>>> that report to turn the observations of the doctor into points.
>>
>> Yes, that is what I would like to see as well, the DWP doctors report 
>> about me. We still have not received a copy of that.
>>
>>>
>>> On 12 points I still think you'll get your decision overturned at 
>>> appeal.
>>> A bit of tweaking in one area (get 9 points instead of 6) and you'll be
>>> OK.
>>
>> As it is taking them so long time round, I think it might not get to TS.
>> If it goes to tribunal, I have 3 reports from seperate medical experts to 
>> submit. I assume their medically unqualified DM will not be attending the 
>> hearing ;)
>
> DMs do get some medical training, of the type that is necessary for making 
> a decision on a benefit claim. If you had health insurance at an insurance 
> company do you really think it's a doctor who makes a decision? No, it's 
> the equivalent of a decision maker. The DWP model, back to 1948 (and 
> before that - back to the first sickness benefits in 1911 in fact) was 
> based on how insurance matters were dealt with by insurance companies, 
> friendly societies etc. Decisions on payment for all these organisations 
> were, and still are, made by staff employed by the company and not by 
> medical practitioners. The medical practitioner would never make a 
> decision to pay health insurance. In some companies they are called claims 
> assessors. In the DWP they are called Decision Makers.
>
> The DWP usually (though not always) send a Presenting Officer from the 
> Appeals section to present an appeal. The DM will already have made a 
> relevant submission - of which you get a copy, it's called the appeal 
> papers, and has no need to attend.

Very interesting, this is not the same as dealing with your bog standard 
sanction for not towing the line in the JC. I look forward to receiving all 
this information from the DWP. That should give my legal adviser plenty to 
do.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:7fgq46F2l6mhvU1@mid.individual.net...


>>
>> Who are the two GPs who have declared you unfit? Your GP is one, 
>> presumably, who is the other? It certainly isn't the EMP as that isn't 
>> the function of that particular doctor.
>>
> 
> The EMP must have said something for me to get 12 points, if I was 
> declared fit by the EMP, I would have 0 points.

The EMP provides a factual report with no reference to whether you are 
fit or unfit for work. See below for a link which explains this further 
(and in much greater detail).

> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>>> The DM then uses the report of the doctor to award the points, or not
>>>> award, as the case may be. The alternative would be to have medically
>>>> qualified DMs but that would be a rather expensive way of administering
>>>> the benefit.
>>>
>>> I dont think it is a matter of expense. They are paying GP's to 
>>> report, let them get on with it. Then all a DM has to do is file the 
>>> report. This is one of the points I am going to raise if I have to go 
>>> to tribunal. I cant see how someone with no medical training can 
>>> argue with 2 GP's.
>>
>> Why would a DM just have to file a report and do nothing else? They 
>> wouldn't be a DM then but a filing clerk. Surely the clue is in the 
>> name - a "decision maker", formerly called the Adjudication Officer 
>> and prior to that the Insurance Officer. The name, like the name of 
>> the DWP, has changed over the years but the role hasn't.
>>
> 
> As I have already said, why not accept my GP's assessment, let them 
> score that if they want something to do.

Because GPs are there to provide primary healthcare treatment and to 
perhaps devise a care plan, not to provide what is a specialised medical 
examination. In addition, GPs are probably too close to the patient and 
may have a vested interest in the outcome of such a medical. The idea 
behind an independent examining doctor is that the doctor should be 
independent and unbiased, having presumably never met the person before.

> 
>> This has been the way the system has been administered back to the 
>> start of the modern benefit system in 1948. The EMP does the 
>> examination and writes up a factual report. The DM makes an assessment 
>> of entitlement to benefit based on that report with reference to the 
>> descriptors as laid down by the DWP. Good luck arguing against the 
>> system but there are sufficient Commissioners Decisions (case law) 
>> developed over the decades that back up the system.
> 
> I will leave it up to my legal adviser to do the arguing.
> 
>>
>> Again, your focus is all over the place. You only get an hour max at a 
>> tribunal hearing. Trying to argue about everything will get you 
>> nowhere fast. You might get it all off your chest but you will not 
>> impress the tribunal, who will have heard it all before. Concentrate 
>> on your health problems, the mental health descriptors in the Work 
>> Capability Assessment - the mental health descriptors can be found at 
>> http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/wr_esadescriptorslcwmental
>>
>>  and how your mental health problems fit into the descriptors that 
>> attract 9 not 6 points. Your case worker at the CAB or whatever should 
>> be advising you of this. Get your GP, and any other person involved in 
>> your medical treatment, to back up why you should be in a higher point 
>> band. Seriously, you need to focus on getting your points increased 
>> and forget all the other stuff you keep coming out with.
>>
> 
> I am not going to say anything at the hearing if I can help it, 
> hopefully I might not have to go. Just send them my GP's report along 
> with my legal advisers letters, that should be enough for them to make a 
> decision. Its no good asking me questions, I know fuck all about law

The tribunal WILL ask you questions. Not about law, but about any matter 
that is relevant to dealing with your appeal. Your legal adviser will 
not be in a position to answer questions about how you deal with life on 
a day to day basis.

>>
>> DMs do get some medical training, of the type that is necessary for 
>> making a decision on a benefit claim. If you had health insurance at 
>> an insurance company do you really think it's a doctor who makes a 
>> decision? No, it's the equivalent of a decision maker. The DWP model, 
>> back to 1948 (and before that - back to the first sickness benefits in 
>> 1911 in fact) was based on how insurance matters were dealt with by 
>> insurance companies, friendly societies etc. Decisions on payment for 
>> all these organisations were, and still are, made by staff employed by 
>> the company and not by medical practitioners. The medical practitioner 
>> would never make a decision to pay health insurance. In some companies 
>> they are called claims assessors. In the DWP they are called Decision 
>> Makers.
>>
>> The DWP usually (though not always) send a Presenting Officer from the 
>> Appeals section to present an appeal. The DM will already have made a 
>> relevant submission - of which you get a copy, it's called the appeal 
>> papers, and has no need to attend.
> 
> Very interesting, this is not the same as dealing with your bog standard 
> sanction for not towing the line in the JC. 

Of course it isn't. It's much more in depth.

I look forward to receiving
> all this information from the DWP. That should give my legal adviser 
> plenty to do.

Here's something else for you to look at and will answer all you will 
ever need to know about the Work Capability Assessment, the purpose 
behind the WCA, the function of the examining Doctor and the role of the 
DM, how assessments are made and the descriptors and scores for each 
activity that is tested at the WCA. It's a long document - 31 pages! - 
and heavy going but there are parts that you should read to help prepare 
your appeal and which may stand you in good stead the next time you get 
called for a WCA (which will happen again, if you are successful at this 
tribunal - one day you will be called for another medical). The part you 
need is the download titled "A Guide To Employment and Support Allowance 
- the Work Capability Assessment" at the Further Details section at the 
bottom of the page. It's a PDF file. Very in depth but worth downloading 
as a reference.