Greetings from the Principality.
After searching through the archives, I found reference to C64/97(DLA) and to a hyperlink (http://145.229.156.3/dmaucomdec.nsf?OpenDatabase) which SHOULD take me to it; BUT! I doesn't anymore!
All this was found in Incap' related benefits - thread "No physical reason for pain" posted by Rachel on 19 May 2004, and replied to by a goodly number of wonderful people.
I have copy of CDLA/0902/2004 - which is useful, and I have lots of good stuff from the ME Association website, but I'm one of those annoying s*ds who doesn't like to lose - ever, so I want "belt and braces" support!
Client is mid-30's female, developed Fibromyalgia (diagnosed in 2003) after glandular fever episode. Had a thriving career as Nursery Nurse, so - contrary to EMP opinion - didn't give it up to lead a luxurious life on Incap (yeah - yeah - yeah, I'm exaggarating the last bit a tad).
SO! make an old man happy and send me your links to above, or anything else you generous, warm caring people want to contribute.
By the way, I'm 51 tomorrow - so won't be in work; you may hear the sound of gentle sobbing - for lost youth and hair - from the South West direction (unless you are in Swansea, then it'll be from the East!).
Splott-Paul

C64/97(DLA) is available here.

There is a summary of CDLA/902/2004 in the briefcase area of rightsnet, together with a link to the full decision, which is available on the osscsc.gov.uk website.

Thanks Ken - got it, printed it and added it to the file. Got CDLA/902/2004 too.
Disappointed that you didn't wish me a happy birthday though - SIGH...

Did you get anywhere with this?

We have a forthcoming tribunal for a client with fibromyalgia which requires that we challenge an unhelpful emp report- DLA taken from double high rate to zero- I see the decisions referred to here, and they're useful, but our decision maker is directly challenging the credibility of the claimant.

I think they're doing this for similar reasons to the decision on fibromyalgia you've referred to, but as I say, SoS's approach in our case is to challenge the credibility of the claimant directly. Fibromyalgia is difficult to diagnose, which could lead to inconsistencies between claimant's evidence and the EMP report.

IS anyone aware of any caselaw on this?

Not caselaw as such, but.....

"directly challenging the credibility of the claimant"? On what basis and in what terms? Are they going for the "inherently improbable" approach or directly questioning her honesty? Seems to me that they'll need something more than the EMP is to be believed because they are an EMP and therefore should be believed (and everyone else is lying).

I've currently got a similar case to yours - client has HMS which is a related condition - and had HRM and MRC reduced to LRC only on renewal, following unhelpful EMP report. My approach has been to challenge the DM's submission to the EMP - the DM requested that the EMP made specific findings on physical symptoms/manifestations of the kind one would precisely expect not to be present due the condition and then used that absence to reduce the award. The EMP was, in effect, misdirected. Do you have the submission to the EMP in this case?

As you say, fibromyalgia is diffcult to diagnose - it's something that, arguably, can only be diagnosed by a specialist. If you have such a specialist diagnosis whilst the Department's EMP is just your run of the mill quack, why not go on the offensive and challenge his credibility?

Thanks for further contributions to debate - I've got another thread running elsewhere, on Stickler Syndrome, if you know owt about that!

Unsurprisingly, the tribunal hasn't been heard - or even listed yet! though we have had TAS 1, so fingers crossed before Chrimbo, eh? Part of the reason for delay may be the semi-successful, official complaint made about the EMP; his attitude, his report and his "opinions".

This report was reviewed by a Senior EMP colleague, based up in the Reichstag bunker in Leeds, who picked some holes in it - especially on the mobility part and the strange interpretations made from the evidence provided. He also suggested these be directed to the tribunal, which - of course - we have.

Watch this space, and I'll hopefully report something very soon.
Thanks again.
Splott Paul

Past caring,in reply to your post, the DWP are ,I hope, on a sticky wicket here.
Unfortunately for them,my client is eloquent and well supported by their gp, health visitor,and it appears,everyone else who knows them- many supporting letters.

They are basing this on the fact that someone reported the client for being seen using a wheelbarrow (full of gravel). On the strength of that a visiting officer was sent out to them. They tried to do this out of guilt, watching their daughter doing it in the rain without help. It took him a week of pain to recover from shifting one barrow load a few metres.

The EMP reported seeing the client walk 5 metres, and extrapolated that they thought he would be able to walk 750 metres!

Not only that, but they backdated the withdrawal of benefit by 14 months, to 12 weeks after a hip replacement.. a condition which was never the primary reason for the initial award! Hence, prior to any appeal decision, the client is now in massive overpayment. The op was, in anycase, not entirely successful.

P.s. Past caring? Looking at the time of your post, you and I should both get a life!!

Update on my case: Hearing has twice been postponed now. I am in effect turning it into 2 appeals, as the DWP are trying to backdate the supercession to 2004. Over a year before they made their decision!

This is based on their view that my client knew that his condition had improved , following a hip replacement (which was not entirely successful). Therefore, the date they are using is 12 weeks after the operation.

This, despite the fact that on his earlier claim forms, he had clearly stated that Fibromyalgia was his most debilitating condition. We have asked the DWP for any records they may have regarding the basis for their previous award, but they have been unable to provide anything of this kind to indicate which of his conditions they may have considered to be more relevant to the claim.

I might add that in the emp's report, it was stated that they considered my client to be able to walk about 650 metres at a slow pace, in about 6-7 minutes. I tried this over a measured distance, and failed by 17 seconds to cover the distance in that time. I'm 6 ft 8 inches tall, and very fit!!

Anyway, the first postponement was because the chair was not qualified to consider the relevant issues. The second postponement (last week ) was because 1) The DWP presenting officer wanted to bring in the fraud officer who interviewed my client, and they were not available on the day due to an interview under caution (a month is obviously not enough notice!?), and because the B'ham tribunals officers had only listed this as a 40 min hearing. It will now be booked for a full day.. which is a little scary!

Hi

Can you please tell me where you obtained a copy of CDLA/0902/2004. I would be most grateful for this information.

FAX is 01324 666935 FAO Dave Daglish (in case you can send me a copy)

Thanks

Dave

Dave - copy being faxed to you in the next two minutes. OK?
Damn, we're good in this wonderful world of welfare rights!
You're welcome, and good luck - we've had a mixed result, some we've "won" - some we've not.
Splo' Paul