We've just noticed that these new computer generated PCA reports don't actually appear to be signed by the doctor. To my mind, this meands that any Tom, Dick or Harriet could have completed it.

Is there any caselaw requiring reports to have been signed (or any other documents for that matter)? If nothing that specific is there any legs in an argument that they have not satisfied burden of proof that PCA been carried out?

On a similar issue we regularly see reports that have been "corrected" as part of their "quality auditing" process. The "corrections" always seem to reduce the number of points. With the computer generated reports this will be probably be impossible to detect.

From the computer reports I've seen, they also seem to contain less detail than the handwritten ones, and a lot of what is in them seems to have been typred in once and then cut and pasted to other parts of the report.

The following thread contains discusion on this point.
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=33&mesg_id=33&page=

We have just recieved our first appeal with such a report.
I will argue the evidence is not reliable as it is not authenticated because it is not signed.If we submitted unsigned medical evidence it would be rightly dismissed.
Unfortunately it will be several months before we get an hearing date. So if any one has feed back, keep us all informed.

Follow the link mentionned above as there is another threda om this matter and links to NAWRA workshop in December of which the note are avaible on this website.

We have had a bit of guidance on electronic signatures on the PCA reports. It tells us that the doctors need to use unique log-in credentials to actually access the medical report programme. Each page of the report is clearly marked with the name of the doctor completing it. The reports are therefore securely associated with the individual doctor producing it. The Departments legal advisors are satisfied that the report making process meets the requirements of Section 7 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.

I admit though, that I much prefer the handwritten reports.

I've just received a supplementary submission from the DWP on the issue of the 'typed' signature. It is identical to the guidance outlined above and seems to miss the point.

The issue is not that somebody in Medical Services is pretending to be the examining doctor but the nature of the LIMA system.

It is our understanding that the doctor never sees the completed written report and therefore cannot sign it as a true record of his findings and opinions on a claimant. As Medical Sevices are being secretive about the workings of the computer system, the argument is that the report is defficient as we can't tell whether the doctor has written, checked and agreed everything in the report.

Good point. I hadn't thought about it like that.
It will be interesting to find out what the tribunal decides.

There seems to be two sets of rules emerging here - (nothing new there then) electronically produced medical reports that apparently do not require a human signature ......whilst on the other hand internet completed claim forms for benefits still have to be eventually signed by a claimant for them to be accepted by DWP.

I was under the immpression that electronic "signatures" are not yet acceptable in english Courts of law, so: medical reports are evidence just like any other, so I don't see why they should be treated any differently - the fact that this issue may have been looked at by the DWP legal people doesn't necessarily instil one with a sense of well being - more a sense of de javu, thinking of the number of Regulations that have been declared ultra virus over the years......I can see this one ending up with a Commissioner, (or even a Tribunal of).....