Medical Evidence and Decision Makers

Only just noticed this thread.
I’m a sceptic on the issue of medical evidence, and think that its absence should never be used (unless there are very strong reasons to think it will help) with getting on with things.  My personal views are:
- never overwhelm a tribunal with paperwork, especially if you produce it at the hearing (that way lie adjournments, and judges get criticised if their adjournment rate is unusually high);
- never send in medical evidence that is not directly relevant to a fact in issue. So much medical evidence is unhelpful and right off the point - waste of a postage stamp!
- never forget that in law the “best” evidence is traditionally that of a witness in the witness box who can be questioned to test the reliability of that evidence, especially if they have direct personal knowledge of the facts, like say the claimant themselves;
- do put in a submission of maximum 2 pages summarising the points you want the Triubnal to concentrate on and what result you are looking for;
- refer briefly to your sub and then hand over to your client to give evidence.

Mik, you’ll be fine.

I remember I spent hours preparing the case for my first hearing. I didn’t need half of it in the end (I seem to remember it was an in & out job though it’s lost in the mists of time now…I remember it was IVB under the old- pre PCA/AWT- test…dear me, I feel as old as Methusula) but I can tell you that I still get nervous before hearings and I don’t think that will ever change.

Do let us know how you get on.