All advice appreciated.

My client was successful in an ESA Tribunal at the beginning of Dec 2009 - she sufers from CFS/ME. She was placed in the work related activity group and has now received a further ESA50!!

She is very panicky about this and has been advised by JCP that she 'has' to have another medical as it is mandatory twelve months after the first one??

My understanding was that it is discretionary - can we challenge thuis as her condition can significantly deteriorate following undue stress.

Thanks for your help.

This has just happened to one of our clients who has been called up for a medical later this month - the one he (successfully) appealed about was only in July and the appeal in January.

There is no such 12 month rule.

Absolutely no such rule in the law. However, the DWP set control periods to trigger new medicals/ESA 50s. The length of these are decided by DWP staff and are not subject to appeal and generally not known to the claimant.

However, the usual administrative law principles apply to such things - not having blanket rules, looking at the merits of each case, not being irrational, etc.

It may be possible to challenge the issue of a new ESA 50 so soon after a Tribunal by using the DWP's complaints procedure and/or possibly judicial review.

I had a client who experienced this revolving door a couple or three years back. After the 3rd successful PCA appeal, when he turned up at our door with another IB50 I sent it back with a covering letter complaining the he was being victimised and he passed the PCA on scrutiny.

Now I'm not usually one for alleging any collusion but it was more than a bit convenient...

If you have any supportive evidence from the previous appeal send that that as well as the ESA50.

Resurrecting this old thread as now have three clients being sent ESA50 and onward medicals following successful appeals go into WRAG. Started formal complaints procedure.

Local BDC recently stated 'everyone' seen at 3 or 6 month intervals. Of course nothing in law requires this. The problem seems to stem from the 'prognosis' usually found in the ATOS medical report.."should be better after 3 months", etc.

Reg. 23 (quoted by BDC) in reply to complaint states:

Claimant may be called for a medical examination to determine whether the claimant has limited capability for work

23.—(1) Where it falls to be determined whether a claimant has limited capability for work, that claimant may be called by or on behalf of a health care professional approved by the Secretary of State to attend for a medical examination.

However, in each case, the tribunal has ALREADY determined whether there was limited capability for work. My understanding is that the Pathways provider should then make appropriate recomendations regarding clients work prospects, etc.

Was wondering if anyone has pursued this further or had a succesful JR decision, as it appears clear case of the JCP fettering its own discretion.