Dear All

I have a case in which the DM holds:

"Commissioners have stated that the evidence of a medical adviser is both disinterested and informed and is normally to be preferred to that of the claimants GP because the GP is likely to be subject to pressure from the claimant.”

I am sure i have read in a Welfare Rights Bulletin that this is rubbish. I am sure that there is a case in which it was held that a GP is a "sufficiently robust professional" to resisit the pressure from a patient.

But I'll be hanged if I can find it...

Any clues?

Kind Regards

Richard Stacey

try this recent thread...

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=7252&mesg_id=7252&page=

I am very grateful to you for the link. However, the thread doesnt give the caselaw et al that I am after.

If anyone can give me the steer I would really appreciate it.

Rich

Rich are you thinking of a Commissioner Howells decision CIB/1442/96 haven't got a copy only a quote that goes like this

'the GP is a professional person, and as the claimant's husband pointed out nobody was forcing him to give one answer rather the other. If he had thought that the question he was being asked gave an exaggerated description of the claimant's true level of disability he could have easily said so.......'

Andy

Dear Andy

heaven praise your name!!!!!

many thanks

Rich

In CIB/563/2001 the commissioner said:

“5. The tribunal dismissed the appeal and there is now an appeal to the Commissioner on the ground that their decision is erroneous in law.

6. The crux of the tribunal’s reasoning in this case appears in their statement of reasons:-

“In this case the tribunal must decide between two sets of conflicting evidence namely the findings of the (BAMS doctor) as against the verbal and written evidence of the appellant and the report of (the associate specialist). In reaching their decision the tribunal preferred the (BAMS doctor’s) report. This is because this report is from an independent source and follows a full clinical examination and verbal assessment of the appellant.”

7. I find this formula, variations of which I have seen in other cases, to be irrational. BAMS doctors are trained and paid by the Secretary of State, who is one of the parties to the proceedings, to provide expert evidence to assist in determining, amongst other things, incapacity for work. In this case an associate specialist has been paid by a Solicitor acting on behalf of another party to the proceedings to prepare an expert report. I do not understand the basis on which a tribunal can, consistent with its judicial function, prefer the report of the BAMS doctor on the ground that it is “independent”.”

Also see CDLA/810/1998, CDLA/2961/2004 and CIB/4232/2007.