New underhand DWP tactic when IAS assessment is in client’s favour

Cl has spinal problems/hypermobility syndrome/Bipolar Disorder/Mood Disorder. Received HRM/HRC under DLA.

Cl attended PIP assessment 29/06/2017. IAS (ATOS) HCP recommends:
-Daily Living:-19pts
-Mobility:-12 points (11b and 12b).

DWP refers case for second opinion 24/07/2017. Result is Standard Daily Living and no mobility. No reasons given for referring to second opinion.

Anyone experienced similar? Any tips for challenge?

Thanks in advance.

Haven’t had this but;

1. You presumably have the first report - i.e. not just the points scored but the whole PA4? If not, you can get it.

2. The second opinion is surely only that? - i.e. there’s not an entirely new PA4? Just a different opinion based on exactly the same report - but this time produced by someone who has a) never met the claimant and b) is no more ‘qualified’ than the assessor who did produce the first report and who did actually meet the claimant?

And given the importance that tribunals rightly give to a claimant’s own oral evidence, I think the DWP will need to come up with a very convincing explanation as to why the second opinion, given by someone who never met the claimant, should be preferred to the first opinion, given by someone who did.

That said, it’s worth going through the report in detail - it could be that the original, more generous, points score isn’t actually sustainable on the evidence…..

Nothing surprises me any more but… I wonder whether hyper mobility is your issue there. A bit like CFS it’s an issue of some controversy in the medical profession. There is a view that there is no relationship between hyper mobility and pain. It’s sufficiently widespread to have gained the usual traction in all the wrong places. Was talking to a couple of clinical skills professionals at a university of Manchester event a couple of weeks ago and was horrified to hear the battles people have to get it taken seriously. People up North who write reports accepting the link are generally dismissed.

That said, in a culture of nil points it shouldn’t really be a surprise when 31 points triggers a second opinion.

Thanks Mike.

Certainly the second HCP opines that hypermobility means the client “could reach anywhere” (whatever that means!) Pain appears not to have been considered at all. (No surprises there!).

Actually, the client’s main issues spring from the bipolar. (Inappropriate spending patterns, need for prompting/supervision etc).

I’m thinking of quoting verbatim the DWP’s standard wording re the training and trustworthiness of HCPs when asking them to explain the reasons they referred to a 2nd HCP, but I suspect the irony would be lost on them!

Well established legal principle, “Obtaining a different medical opinion is not a change of circumstances ... ”  Applying a lay person’s common sense someone’s care needs and mobility restrictions cannot have improved within such a short span!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dwp-customer-phone-lines-to-become-freephone