|
Just a note for all those rep.s appealling against these IB decisions out there...
the grounds that we all have been putting against the Electronic Reports ie the 'Absence of Certification'(ie a signature) and the fact that they appear to be no more than 'Standardised Appraisals' would appear to have now been accepted by the Commissioners!!!
So it'd be useful for you to all know, if you don't already, the following cases:
RE:'Absence of Certification'(ie a signature)
CIB/3984/2004: Sir Agnew Of Lochnaw, in a detailed ruling in which he addressed the specific remarks as related by the Secretary of State in this matter, he states: “As the Electronic Medical Report was challenged in the present case, it can only be competent evidence if it was certified under section 7(1) of the 2000 Act. It seems clear to me that it was not so certified.”
Commissioner Williams, in CDLA/4127/2003, states at point 19: “… the Tribunal must not only be efficient and effective but also fair. In cases like this it must, in Article 6 terms, equalize the arms...”; and at point 20 ‘The Secretary of State, claimants and Tribunals are all entitled to rely on declarations meaning what they say.’ By not re-signing or amending the formal declaration at the end of the DLA140 Commissioner Williams held that ‘Actions like those in this case make a mockery of such declarations, and undermine the reliability of the documents to which they are attached’
RE: 'Standardised Appraisals'
Both Commissioner Williams in CIB/476/2005 and Commissioner Howell in CIB/0511/05 looked specifically at the contents of electronic reports and how they are completed in respect to the matter of ‘standardized appraisal’. In the particular case of Commissioner Williams in CIB/476/2005: the claimant made a complaint to SEMA about the medical examination and the report. SEMA accepted that the claimant’s complaint was justified and the approved Doctor accepted that he made a mistake in his recording of how long the claimant could sit. Had the mistake not been made the claimant would have passed the PCA. Commissioner Williams expressed a number of concerns about reports generated on the electronic IB85. In the case in question Mrs F criticised the reports comment that ‘They enjoyed an active social life’. There was no evidence of this in the papers according to Commissioner Williams yet the statement appeared 12 times in various places on the IB85.
Commissioner Williams gives his opinion at point 15 of his decision regarding standardised phrases that form part of the computer program. ‘They enjoy an active social life’ is a standard phrase that can be activated by the approved Doctor, ‘When activated in Box 7, the software in the computer will automatically suggest the phrase in a number of contexts. That is because the underlying program is written on the basis that the phrase is relevant evidence to a number of aspects of the report. Unless the doctor acts to stop this, or go back and correct an error, any error in Box 7 will repeat itself.’ Commissioner Williams goes on to say that: ‘The new form of IB85 does not distinguish the original insertion of a phrase in a report from its repetition elsewhere in the report’
Similarly, in concurrence, Commissioner Howell in CIB/0511/05 noted the …”system, in which statements or phrases appear to be capable of being produced mechanically without necessarily representing actual wording chosen and typed in bt the examining doctor, obviously carries an increased risk of accidental discrepancies or mistakes remaining undetected in the final product.”
Commissioner Williams indicates, in CIB 476 2005- para. 14, that inappropriate statements may be being attributed to Appellants in addressing the question ‘Did Dr J (the Examining Medical Officer) invent answers?’:
“Mrs F alleged that Dr J attributed to her statements that she did not make. The Tribunal took a somewhat hostile view of her criticisms, dismissing some as “difficult to believe”. I am concerned that the tribunal relied too uncritically on the electronic IB85 and that some of its criticisms of Mrs F were misplaced”
Go to the Commissioners websites for the full versions of the above rulings, but these are v.useful I think in confirming what we all thought was the case!!!
|
