Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
FTT re PIP /acknowledgment of illness but no points
The problem is exacerbated by the process.
The HCP is in fact the DM as they follow the former in interpreting law and implementing a legal decision. I presume this is for contractual reasons. (and possibly a toe in the water for a future offshoring outsourcing opportunity?)
Therefore current HM Gov/DWP logic seems to be that I should see a doctor about selling my house and see a conveyancer about my foot.
I’m sure there’s a better analogy but it would probably involve cars or something…...
I agree, but we also exacerbate and endorse the process
I’d say passively endorse, rather than enthusiastically endorse.
There are many things I disagree with but comply for the sake of a quiet life.
I think the compliance is a thing done in many cases because literally no thought is given to alternatives (and consequences) but I think it’s also true to say that some people actively embrace the process with enthusiasm as it’s a means of gatekeeping I.e. I don’t need to pick your case up until you’ve got this. In many cases it’s done knowing well that “this” cannot be obtained. Thus many people with perfectly arguable cases are cast aside at the outset through being encouraged to accept that it’s a medical model process and only compliance with that will succeed.
[ Edited: 21 Dec 2017 at 04:45 pm by Mike Hughes ]It does
The problem is exacerbated by the process.
The HCP is in fact the DM as they follow the former in interpreting law and implementing a legal decision. I presume this is for contractual reasons. (and possibly a toe in the water for a future offshoring outsourcing opportunity?)
Therefore current HM Gov/DWP logic seems to be that I should see a doctor about selling my house and see a conveyancer about my foot.
I’m sure there’s a better analogy but it would probably involve cars or something…...
I agree, but we also exacerbate and endorse the process
I’d say passively endorse, rather than enthusiastically endorse.
There are many things I disagree with but comply for the sake of a quiet life.
I think the compliance is a thing done in many cases because literally no thought is given to alternatives (and consequences) but I think it’s also true to say that some people actively embrace the process with enthusiasm as it’s a means of gatekeeping I.e. I don’t need to pick your case up until you’ve got this. In many cases it’s dime knowing well that “this” cannot be obtained. Thus many people with perfectly arguable cases are cast aside at the outset through being encouraged to accept that it’s a medical model process and only compliance with that will succeed.
If we are talking about evidence or case law (I think we are) then I’d say tbf I’ve not relinquished or withdrawn on the basis that there is no ‘evidence’ where the is nothing to lose - I personally explain it’s all on the appellant and their oral evidence. I don’t do the talking - the tribunal talk directly to the appellant as they (the claimant) can’t incriminate themselves.
Where someone has got something to lose then that conversation is different - hopefully the appellant watched Bullseye all those years ago (Bully’s Star Prize Gamble) - saves a lot of explaining.
As we know medical evidence in itself is rarely helpful directly, particularly as we’re not medically trained, so it’s always a thought process of interpretation and application.
Of course the biggest factor is the tribunal and I do not know what the tribunal on the day is going to think.
I can guess - but even after all this time there’s still those cases which I thought were a ‘highly unlikely’ or a ‘dead cert’ that didn’t get the imagined decision.
That’s no to say the decision is wrong - just unexpected - and that is probably why that part of the system works well.
Marty McFly: [Reading the newspaper from 2015] “Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr. was tried, convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in the state penitentiary.”? Within two hours?
Doc: The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they’ve abolished all lawyers.
on the other hand, where someone has defined medical conditions that are known to be disabling in some way or other, proving that the person does in fact have the condition is of course of assistance - especially where some HCP somewhere is saying, no they don’t and/or it doesn’t have that effect.
if faced with such, it is correct to prove the condition and its general effects by way of evidence, whether from the GP etc records or from online journals.
Can’t assume that the medical tribunal member will have heard of the condition, after all ....
I have no problem with medical evidence for diagnosis and prognosis. However, I rarely come across cases where either are in dispute. More likely is that the claimant reads them as being so. Medical members largely seem to have a problem with accepting another human being truthful no matter which aspect of a claim is under discussion.
23:36?