stainsby
Welfare Benefits Officer, Gallions Housing Association, Thamesmead SE London
Member since
22nd Jan 2004
|
RE: CIB 13038/96
Thu 11-Aug-05 09:06 AM |
|
I dont have a copy of the full decision but here is an exract from Welfare Rights Bulletin summarising the decision:
"CIB/13038/1996 (27 November 1996): Medical evidence – GP’s evidence to be taken into account
Welfare Rights Bulletin
The tribunal rejected the evidence of the claimant’s GP because she had only known the claimant for six months and ‘depended heavily’ on what the claimant told her.
Commissioner Goodman held that it was wrong to reject the GP’s evidence simply because the GP in question had only known the claimant for six months. In particular, the letter from the GP was detailed and constituted a genuine attempt to assist the claimant in his appeal. The tribunal should not have discounted it by saying that they did not accept it because the GP had only known the claimant for six months and depended heavily on what the claimant told her."
While the decision may be useful I would not rely too heavily on it because in CDLA/810/1998 Commissioner Powell wrote at para 8
"However, I do not consider that the able and experienced Commissioner who gave that decision was intending to lay down a general rule. I have no doubt that his remarks were directed to the facts before him."
and at para 9
"9. An important part of the work of tribunals concerned with social security law relates to the weighing up of medical evidence and the resolution of issues arising out of such evidence. Clearly, in deciding what weight is to be given to a particular piece of evidence, one of the factors may be the amount of contact the person giving the evidence has had with the appellant. Further, a doctor may merely repeat what his patient says. It such event, the evidence is that of the doctor’s patient and it gains nothing by being repeated by the doctor. Tribunals should, nevertheless, proceed with caution. An experienced doctor, whether acting as an examining medical practitioner or as a general practitioner, should be able to make a reasonable assessment within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, a general practitioner will usually have access to a patient’s notes, hospital reports and other material. He or she may have discussed the patient’s problems with other doctors and staff, such as a practice nurse, working in the same practice who have had more contact with the patient. Again, in setting out what a patient has said, a doctor may add something of his or her own."
If you mangage to get a full text copy of CIB/13038/1996 please send it to Rightsnet so we can all use it. I will send CDLA/810/1998
|
