× Members

Suggestions for ATOS assessment of sensitive case?

More
11 years 1 week ago #103864 by cannyman
Interestingly, she had already asked directly in an earlier bit of the interview if I use online banking. I don't, I use telephone banking. Maybe I just look like a gamer :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #105341 by cannyman
Hi,

I'm basically wondering if anyone has any tips for me discussing my migration to ESA with my consultant tomorrow? Still no decision about it! I did write to the sensitive case team last week to complain about a couple of things, but mainly why it's so far been 8 months so far. The stress has been quite bad for me. I got phone call from the team leader today. They are hoping to get it to a decision maker next week and I got some explanation of the delays. We did talk about things as I am seeing my consultant tomorrow. While she is not a decision maker, she says she expects me to get WRAG at best and basically told me what is wrong with my GPs letter.

I really should be in the support group and I know my consultant thinks this. She is giving me the chance to get a letter in from him. She will phone again on Friday to find out what's happening with that. In that respect they are being quite fair. I'll take the B&W pack with the bit about the requirements for getting into SG with me for the consultant to see. Just wondered if anyone had any suggestions other than that? I know he has got most of his patients that have been through this into SG, so it sounds like he knows what needs to be said anyway.

Thanks,

cannyman

PS: GP said I have a variable condition which means they can ignore the fact that I can be housebound and training and interviews only 'likely' to make me more ill, so can also be ignored!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #105349 by slugsta
Hi cm,

I do agree with your GP regarding your last sentance. In order to claim under the exceptional circumstances rule, the claimant must show that there would be a substantial risk. While there is no formal definition of substantial, it is certainly more than 'likely'.

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #105351 by cannyman
Hi Mrs Hurtyback,

It was the GP that said 'likely' in his letter. I'll speak to the consultant about substantial risk and see if he feels able to say that.

It's maybe just me, it seems like getting the right wording is so important!

Thanks very much.

cannyman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #105361 by Gordon
cannyman

Just to add to Mrs H's comments.

Whilst there is no definition of "substantial" in specific connection to the Exceptional Circumstances (Regulations 29 and 35), there is Case Law in regard to its use in one of the ESA Descriptors.

The judge makes it clear that whilst they are no subscribing a value to substantial it should be expected to be much more than the normal criteria of the majority of the time.

Also, Regulations 35 requires there to be some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement, your Consultant and GP must make reference to this.

They must also explain why Work Related Activity would create a risk to your mental or physical health of that of another person. To do this they must not just define the risk, how likely it is that you or another would be affected, but also what WRA would cause this.

To be clear WRA does not encompass your working.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: slugsta

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 11 months ago #105364 by cannyman
Thanks Gordon. That's really helpful. I think this is probably going to be the only way to get SG. The other descriptor that I could qualify with is mobility, and it was fairly clear today that DWP will dispute that one! The joy of 'variable'.

Thanks again,

cannyman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.