For the latest on PCAs and the LiMA software pilot see Maria Eagle's written response to a parliamentary question in Hansard.

So the MP did not get the minister to disclose the whole shebang.

I am sure one of us could:

Some lippy rep is bound to ask that the avenues that this piece of software guides Doctor's down, as well as the specific questions it asks and the reccommendations that it makes etc, be put in evidence at an Appeal Tribunal. Now that will be a big bundle.... for example how capable is the software of advising on someone who has such severe headaches that they are almost totally incapacitated whenever they have them.

Also, I noted that the first one of these I have seen was not signed by the Doctor. This suggests to me that the Doctor may not ever see a hard copy of the report. Given we all know how easy it is to check the wrong tick box on an electronic form etc. this is a bit worrying.

Martin,

You're right. The ones I've seen weren't signed either. In addition, I've heard from one claimant who was initially found incapable of work using LIMA. This was then subject to 'independent' scrutiny by a senior Medical Services doctor and the decision overturned because the doctor who did the scrutinising said that the examining doctor had accidentaly clicked on the wrong option in relation to one of the activities. The examining doctor confirmed this was the case when interviewed by the senior doctor. That does very strongly suggest that either the doctors don't see a hard copy of their report or can't be bothered to check it. Which opens the possibility, in the absence of a sined statement that the doctor has read the report, of asking that doctors attend hearings to give evidence that they actualy meant what they clicked, as it were.

p.s. I actualy asked the MP to ask a couple of those questions, so the blame for their failure to get to the bottom of anything is largely mine. But it is worth knowing that that particular MP is open to being approached and asking questions on behalf of welfare rights workers.

Does anybody know the legal status of written evidence that is not signed? If I asked a client's relative for a statement and presented the tribunal with a neatly typed page and no signature I bet they would sling it. Is there any caselaw?

There are no formal rules of evidence in an appeal tribunal.

As you are (presumably ) a "respected" representative, then I see no reasons why a tribunal faced with the statement and your statement that it was given to you by the relative directly should not accept its origin and validity.

Certainly they would need to give reasons for failing to accept it.

None of this means of course that they have to give it any weight.....

The situation would of course be different if we were talking about a computer generated report where the relative had ticked umpteen drop down boxes in quick succession and then hit print without any evidence of checking over what was coming out.....

.... but does the doctor ever press print? At NAWRA in December (see NAWRA documents on this site) we discussed this and Chris Orr from Glasgow explained that he understood that the report, after completion, was electronically sent to the Decision maker. It is is then does perhaps s7 Electronic Comuunictaions Act 2000 (electronic signatures) deem it to be electronically signed?

The copy that we see is just that - a copy that we see as we don't have electronic delivery of appeals documents.

We have been running arguments on this with varying degrees of success....including the non-signing of PCAs.

I don't see any reason why the report could be invalid as evidence just because it is unsigned.

I think the easier argument is that the report may contain inaccuracies as the Doctor has not reviewed a hardcopy of the report before submitting it- that argument would be particularly strong where no reasons for a tick box being chosen are given or where the reasons conflict with a tick box.

Thus what is changed by such an argument is not the admissability or otherwise of the report as evidence (which can almost never happen given the absence of formal rules of evidence) but rather the weight to be attached to it as a piece of evidence.

Precisely why the argument can/should be run. It weakens it as evidence and linked into other arguments about the burden of proof can be helpful. One chairman in this area takes a very dim view of not signing documents and told me that she would never send off a document to any court without signing it to indicate that was what she wanted to send and it was correct and therefore she stood by it.

The Commissioners decision (csdla 49/94)about unsigned decisions is not a strong argument on its own and I wouildn't suggest that anyone relies on that solely, but as a piece of a wider submission it can be helpful.