- Posts: 5
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
- PA4 "balance of probability" & denying brain fog due to no separate diagnosis
× Members
PA4 "balance of probability" & denying brain fog due to no separate diagnosis
- PilotParent
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
19 hours 16 minutes ago #306112 by PilotParent
PA4 "balance of probability" & denying brain fog due to no separate diagnosis was created by PilotParent
Evening.
I posted recently about my PIP telephone assessment and the assessor not having/using the pre-tribunal decision when completing the report. The 7 points that have dropped this time for daily living are the same 7 that were awarded to me by a decision maker after telephoning me and clarifying some information. As suggested, I wrote a letter addressed to the decision maker informing them of this error but unfortunately the letter wasn't in time and the decision was made a couple of days after the letter was sent.
As I expected, the decision maker has gone with the recommendations in the report, omitting these 7 points, although they have made the award length 3 years rather than the 18 months suggested in the report (previous award was 5 years and my conditions are all incurable and more likely to deteriorate rather than improve).
I am in the process of compiling my MR and have a couple of questions.
In the reasoning for the descriptors that are recommended for 4 of the daily living activities, (all 4 are ones that I dropped points on and the incorrect previous descriptor has been stated), the phrase "therefore the balance of probability suggests that descriptor x is probable" is used ( on 2 of the activities the abbreviation BOP is using so I am assuming this means balance of probability as it has been omitted from the list of abbreviations used). I'm a little confused as to what exactly is meant by this as it seems a little vague. Can anyone shed any light on what they mean by it?
Also, on the majority of the activities, the same (long)explanation is copied and pasted into the reported restrictions not supported section, dismissing my brain fog and memory issues as they are not a " global cognitive diagnosis" . The same explanation also states that I had adequate general memory and concentration for the duration of the 1hr 35min call. This is despite acknowledging that I had notes, prompts and my forms in front of me and that the brain fog is is from my conditions rather than a separate condition in the functional history. Does the fact that it is just repeatedly copied and pasted have any impact and also, surely a 1hr 37m call does not fit in with majority of days. Are these points worth including?
The healthcare professional was only allocated my assessment prior to the call and was 37mins late calling as she had used that time to read my paperwork. Is this worth including in the MR as 37mins doesn't seem long enough to read through the paperwork.
Lastly, I recorded the assessment myself (I had informed them in advance that I was and the assessor was aware and was unable to record it as I had requested as the equipment was not working. I now have a transcription of the phone call, can I print this out and highlight extracts to send with my MR as evidence?
Apologies for the long post and thanks for reading.
I posted recently about my PIP telephone assessment and the assessor not having/using the pre-tribunal decision when completing the report. The 7 points that have dropped this time for daily living are the same 7 that were awarded to me by a decision maker after telephoning me and clarifying some information. As suggested, I wrote a letter addressed to the decision maker informing them of this error but unfortunately the letter wasn't in time and the decision was made a couple of days after the letter was sent.
As I expected, the decision maker has gone with the recommendations in the report, omitting these 7 points, although they have made the award length 3 years rather than the 18 months suggested in the report (previous award was 5 years and my conditions are all incurable and more likely to deteriorate rather than improve).
I am in the process of compiling my MR and have a couple of questions.
In the reasoning for the descriptors that are recommended for 4 of the daily living activities, (all 4 are ones that I dropped points on and the incorrect previous descriptor has been stated), the phrase "therefore the balance of probability suggests that descriptor x is probable" is used ( on 2 of the activities the abbreviation BOP is using so I am assuming this means balance of probability as it has been omitted from the list of abbreviations used). I'm a little confused as to what exactly is meant by this as it seems a little vague. Can anyone shed any light on what they mean by it?
Also, on the majority of the activities, the same (long)explanation is copied and pasted into the reported restrictions not supported section, dismissing my brain fog and memory issues as they are not a " global cognitive diagnosis" . The same explanation also states that I had adequate general memory and concentration for the duration of the 1hr 35min call. This is despite acknowledging that I had notes, prompts and my forms in front of me and that the brain fog is is from my conditions rather than a separate condition in the functional history. Does the fact that it is just repeatedly copied and pasted have any impact and also, surely a 1hr 37m call does not fit in with majority of days. Are these points worth including?
The healthcare professional was only allocated my assessment prior to the call and was 37mins late calling as she had used that time to read my paperwork. Is this worth including in the MR as 37mins doesn't seem long enough to read through the paperwork.
Lastly, I recorded the assessment myself (I had informed them in advance that I was and the assessor was aware and was unable to record it as I had requested as the equipment was not working. I now have a transcription of the phone call, can I print this out and highlight extracts to send with my MR as evidence?
Apologies for the long post and thanks for reading.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 9310
12 hours 38 minutes ago #306149 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic PA4 "balance of probability" & denying brain fog due to no separate diagnosis
Hi PilotParent
There's no need to apologise for the length of your post - we have many longer and many shorter. People write as much as they need to.
The balance of probability - this is increasingly being used on PIP forms. It's a convenient ploy for them to use and it broadly means that with the evidence they have it is 51% or more likely that the particular descriptor they are using is the right one. You don't have to agree with them! They are simply using the term to justify the choice they have made in awarding you points.
When compiling your MR - concentrate on the issues that affect the awarding of point. If you want to put in the final paragraph that you are disappointed by the quality of the report, because so much is copied and pasted, do so, but it won't actually affect the points. You need to show why you think the different criteria were wrong by highlighting your evidence. The same applies to saying that the assessor can't judge you after a single meeting. I get it, but that's the system and you won't win any points for that. Again, it's looking at the specific criteria you want to challenge and arguing about that. Many assessors don't read case notes before the assessment, so although 37 minutes may not have been long, there was nothing to stop her looking at them after the assessment.
You can send in your complete transcript, and you can quote from it. They tend to ignore them at the MR stage, but you can certainly tell them about it.
BIS
There's no need to apologise for the length of your post - we have many longer and many shorter. People write as much as they need to.
The balance of probability - this is increasingly being used on PIP forms. It's a convenient ploy for them to use and it broadly means that with the evidence they have it is 51% or more likely that the particular descriptor they are using is the right one. You don't have to agree with them! They are simply using the term to justify the choice they have made in awarding you points.
When compiling your MR - concentrate on the issues that affect the awarding of point. If you want to put in the final paragraph that you are disappointed by the quality of the report, because so much is copied and pasted, do so, but it won't actually affect the points. You need to show why you think the different criteria were wrong by highlighting your evidence. The same applies to saying that the assessor can't judge you after a single meeting. I get it, but that's the system and you won't win any points for that. Again, it's looking at the specific criteria you want to challenge and arguing about that. Many assessors don't read case notes before the assessment, so although 37 minutes may not have been long, there was nothing to stop her looking at them after the assessment.
You can send in your complete transcript, and you can quote from it. They tend to ignore them at the MR stage, but you can certainly tell them about it.
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: denby
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, latetrain, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David