Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

‘Whether the absence of treatment is an adequate basis from which to infer the existence of function’.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 9 January 2017

Long long story but further to the case law below featured on Rightsnet previously. Thought the stuff attached and the extract below from the NHS survey below undertaken every 7 years was worth another airing.

[2018] UKUT 446 (AAC) (paras 43 – 45), concerning ‘Whether the absence of treatment is an adequate basis from which to infer the existence of function’.

Mental health treatment and service use - ADULT PSYCHIATRIC MORBIDITY SURVEY 2014 CHAPTER 3

‘Headline findings from APMS 2000 and APMS 2007 were that only one-quarter of adults with CMD were receiving psychotropic (mental health) medication or psychological therapy. Thus three-quarters of people who might have benefited from treatment were not receiving this at the time of interview. ‘One in four’ represented the proportion of people assessed by those surveys as having a CMD and who reported that they were receiving treatment. These findings are consistent with the two-thirds to three-quarters of people identified in other epidemiological surveys as meeting criteria for mental disorder and who are not receiving treatment’ (page 5).

File Attachments

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1440

Joined: 18 June 2010

Hi Andy
Thanks the link - very interesting. All the more so as we have further case awaiting UT decision / leave to appeal made by tribunals chaired by the same FTT judge which raise exactly the same issues as in MM. The absence of specialist input / referral, level of prescribed medication etc continue to be a regular theme in his statement of reasons (despite MM) for dismissing appeals - the reasoning repeating the same / similar standard paragraphs.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 9 January 2017

Peter Turville - 03 December 2019 03:45 PM

Hi Andy
Thanks the link - very interesting. All the more so as we have further case awaiting UT decision / leave to appeal made by tribunals chaired by the same FTT judge which raise exactly the same issues as in MM. The absence of specialist input / referral, level of prescribed medication etc continue to be a regular theme in his statement of reasons (despite MM) for dismissing appeals - the reasoning repeating the same / similar standard paragraphs.

Hope it helps Peter!

On a tangent but keeping to the theme on a wider angle. Albeit very rushed thoughts!

There is also the assumption about availability of resources and health professionals having the time to drill deep in to their patient’s health issues e.g. GP’s having next to no time with patients, post code lottery/regional lotteries concerning treatments and drugs , workloads, staff national shortages i.e. GP’s, nurses, OT’s, Consultant’s. Plus staff absences due to illness including stress and retaining staff.

Every Friday i sit opposite a Consultant Psychiatrist, Tuesdays an Oncology Nurse, and then Thursdays a district Nurse all of whom are pre 1996 in take who can retire in their 50’s. Similarly, was in Oxford in Sept at a party and there were 3 early retirees from the Oxford CMHT.

As the NHS Morbidity study spells out (albeit the obvious), that physical health issues are synonymous with mental health issues and vice versa. 

 

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1440

Joined: 18 June 2010

Andy - couldn’t agree more and (teaching you to suck eggs!) there is also the issue of clients / patients who don’t engage with health services for whatever reason even though appropriate resources might be available to them. Or as in the case of MM a very long standing condition for which there is no further possible specialist treatment etc and ‘routine’ GP management is the appropriate intervention. In the case of the FTT judge in MM we are of the opinion there is another ‘agenda’ in play along the lines of, very crudely, the deserving & undeserving poor lying behind recorded reasoning based around an absence of treatment etc.