Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
no words…..
The Liverpool Echo has published extracts from letters from two doctors sent to the DWP on Stephen’s behalf
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/stephen-smith-warning-doctors-dwp-16185418
Surely there is a negligence claim here somewhere?
Also, for the Sec of State to refuse to comment is absolutely disgraceful. No shame whatsoever!
Surely there is a negligence claim here somewhere?
Also, for the Sec of State to refuse to comment is absolutely disgraceful. No shame whatsoever!
Too busy trumpeting good-news stories.
Surely there is a negligence claim here somewhere?
no
no one has been negligent, as such.
the HCP will have done what the HCP was told to do; may have been bad practice, but that’s not the same thing
the DM will then have decided that the HCP knew more than the consultant and the GP on the usual grounds that the consultant/GP were acting on what client told them, thus showing a failure to understand anything about medicine and how it is practised ...
and then they will all have dug their heels in
which isn’t to say that there isn’t an action that could be brought, but not in negligence, and given the poor man’s died, who is to bring it and do they have the money to do so? cause of action died with him, essentially.
[ Edited: 30 Apr 2019 at 10:09 am by ClairemHodgson ]From the Guardian today:
An investigation into the treatment of a man who was denied benefits despite being seriously ill and weighing 38kg (6st) before his death has found the Department for Work and Pensions “followed policy”.
The internal DWP review ordered by Amber Rudd found that the department missed “crucial safeguarding opportunities” but that “policy guidance was followed” in Stephen Smith’s case.
DWP followed policy in denying dying man benefits, review finds
Frank Field rather hits the nail on the head as far as the risible response from DWP is concerned.
In response to the letter, Field said: “What kind of policy guidance is it that fails to recognise that somebody is seriously ill and dying? This letter heavily disguises the fact that we’re talking about a man who lost his life, not a package that got lost within the DWP. It sums up much of what’s wrong with the DWP, which is apparently very short on human sympathy.”
So are we to understand that DWP policy is to kill people?
“We are committed to ensuring that people with health conditions get the support they’re entitled to.”
But we are not committed to any action that might assist in achieving that objective, to learn from previous cases etc. etc.
I have seen two previous internal reviews in similar cases. DWP clearly hasn’t learnt anything from previous reviews. The ones I have seen only stated the obvious that any experienced welf who had a cursory look at the claim / evidence could have written in about 20 mins. Neither of those reports contained the phrase ‘not fit for purpose’.