Hi all,

I am a male who has been on DLA since 2007 due to my arthritis and depression. Few days ago I had a medical examination for ESA claim and i am really worried as some people said to me if the ESA examination failed they will stop your DLA too. is that true and if I get the chance to appeal for DLA would they still pay me it while I am appealing? I am really worried as the guy I saw at the examination centre was arrogant and very intimidating please help as i need to know if ESA medical examination failure would make loose my DLA

Sometimes the ESA report can stop DLA - not always though.

Hi all,

 

I am a male who has been on DLA since 2007 due to my arthritis and depression. Few days ago I had a medical examination for ESA claim and i am really worried as some people said to me if the ESA examination failed they will stop your DLA too. is that true and if I get the chance to appeal for DLA would they still pay me it while I am appealing? I am really worried as the guy I saw at the examination centre was arrogant and very intimidating please help as i need to know if ESA medical examination failure would make loose my DLA

Hello

Can't really help with the legal stuff but I failed my ESA test and ended up having to claim JSA (that's a story on its own!)

Anyhow, when I went to the CAB about it they said I could appeal but that I would have to eventually prove that I was that ill that I could not do any type of job and at the same time try and make my problems fit the 'descriptors' that make up ESA pick up a £1 coin, sit down in the same seat for 30mins etc.

I couldn't see how I could prove all of that. I'm all right in proving whats wrong with me, but not much else.

Anyhow, I then applied for DLA instead and failed. When I got my papers through with the reasons, I found out that they had used the ESA result as part of the evidence along with a GP report that didn't give any information of any use.

So in my case they did use the failed ESA test against me. But you are already getting DLA aren't you so it might be different.

Yes I am already getting DLA and it is indifently i wonder if anyone has experienced this before or is it only a spaculation that people are making ???????????

I've heard of it happening, yes.

any on this site where people put their experience about it?

It must have happened to many people.

It just seems that the DWP are using any trick that they can come up with to try and stop or refuse a benefit.

I can't see how a medical for one type of benefit can be used for something totally different.

It's getting like a credit report. Trying to make sure that there is nothing contained in it that could prejudice some future benefit claim.

I asked the CAB that question. How can you make sure that there is nothing on your DWP record file that could be used against you. I was told you can't, unless you are able to overturn that report to show that it is not true.

People are just going to give up making claims in the future because they know that they have a black mark against them from years back. It wouldn't be so bad if some of these medical assessments actually gave a truthful opinion. Mine didn't, it said there was more or less nothing wrong with me that would stop me getting a job.

So I passed the buck to JSA and suggested that they find me a job that I could do!

What do I end up with? Countless meetings and advice sessions, which I refuse to go to as it would prejudice my health to do so. They have accepted that - saying I am really too ill to work.

They tried to get me to reclaim ESA which I won't for obvious reasons and lack of evidence. I now play by their rules, doing everything I am told to do, giving them no reason to force me off JSA!!

Quite enjoy the weekly signing on, I pop over to the local Starbucks to meet up with friends. At least it gets me out of the house - even if I have my wife with me doing the driving bit.

The Government appears to have bought in to its own propaganda relating to DLA and yes I have heard if you fail ESA you may have your DLA reduced or cut. However if that happens make sure you appeal you have nothing to loose and everything to gain.

DLA is a benefit paid to disabled people and it does not matter if the person works or not, as it can be a benefit paid to people who work, but some members of the Government seem to think it should only be paid to people who cannot work.

I think that the award for DLA should be reviewed in the light of any assessment carried out for the DWP.

If you fail to convince the assessor that you are unable to mobilise then that can throw up questions as to how that same person can legitimately be awarded HRM on the basis that they are unable to walk.

There are many areas of assessments that could and do relate to other benefits. IIDB, DLA, AA and ESA. If there is any doubt in one assessment, any other benefit that has been awarded should be reviewed in the light of that information.

Obviously if the decision is overturned on appeal by the Tribunal, you can then use that information to back up the argument that it does not cause doubt for other benefits.

The idea of one annual 'MOT' assessment for all benefits combined would not be a bad thing.

If you fail to convince the assessor that you are unable to mobilise then that can throw up questions as to how that same person can legitimately be awarded HRM on the basis that they are unable to walk.

Er, to get HRM, you must be unable to walk. To get ESA, you must be unable to mobilise. Mobilise being moving using aids, such as a wheelchair.

I think that the award for DLA should be reviewed in the light of any assessment carried out for the DWP.

Why? ESa and DLA are two different benefits and the criteria (with a few exceptions) are different.

Er, to get HRM, you must be unable to walk. To get ESA, you must be unable to mobilise. Mobilise being moving using aids, such as a wheelchair.

 

 

 

Why? ESa and DLA are two different benefits and the criteria (with a few exceptions) are different.

But having HRM and failing to get any points for mobilisation, means that the DLA has accepted that they can't walk and failing the ESA test means that they are fully able to walk and/or use a wheelchair. It would only be right for DLA to question that. Yes it may be that they can mobilise for ESA in a wheelchair, but it would be wrong for DLA not to check it out.

IIDB & AA are also assessed for different crtieria not just DLA & ESA. What I would propose is a combined assessment covering ALL of the criteria for ALL of those benefits on an annual basis. It may be longer in terms of time taken, but it would avoid these different assessments for different benefit claims and it would save an awful lot of money and by being annual, it would weed out those awards that are made but very rarely checked on for upwards of 3 years where the claimant happens to forget about telling the DWP of an improvement in health. I'm in the Support Group of ESA for 3 years. How does the DWP know what I am like now 18 months down the line? Too much is put on the honesty of claimants.

But having HRM and failing to get any points for mobilisation, means that the DLA has accepted that they can't walk and failing the ESA test means that they are fully able to walk and/or use a wheelchair. It would only be right for DLA to question that. Yes it may be that they can mobilise for ESA in a wheelchair, but it would be wrong for DLA not to check it out.

You don't get it, do you?

The criteria for HRM is walking on flat ground for about 100 meters. ESA is about mobilising. Many wheelchair users get HRM because they are unable to walk, yet, can and do use wheelchairs or crutches to get around. ESA is about using aids - DLA HRM isn't.

But having HRM and failing to get any points for mobilisation, means that the DLA has accepted that they can't walk and failing the ESA test means that they are fully able to walk and/or use a wheelchair. It would only be right for DLA to question that. Yes it may be that they can mobilise for ESA in a wheelchair, but it would be wrong for DLA not to check it out.

 

IIDB & AA are also assessed for different crtieria not just DLA & ESA. What I would propose is a combined assessment covering ALL of the criteria for ALL of those benefits on an annual basis. It may be longer in terms of time taken, but it would avoid these different assessments for different benefit claims and it would save an awful lot of money and by being annual, it would weed out those awards that are made but very rarely checked on for upwards of 3 years where the claimant happens to forget about telling the DWP of an improvement in health. I'm in the Support Group of ESA for 3 years. How does the DWP know what I am like now 18 months down the line? Too much is put on the honesty of claimants.

There are some illneses and disabilities which should be a life time award as it is obvious they will never improve and it is just a waste of money to ask these people to have an annual medical as well as causing needless stress. Also it is not just the honesty of the claimants in filling in the DLA forms as they usually have to be backed up with consultants and Doctors reports.

DLA is an acknowledgement that those on benefits for a long time need more financial help than those on JSA which is basically a benefit which gives you enough to scrape by on until you find a new job, but is not meant to sustain someone for years. DLA is also a way of providing extra support for those that need that extra help to be able to work. It should be kept totally separate from ESA. Although I suppose that although they are saying they are changing DLA to PIP it is probably just a stepping stone on the way to Universal Credit where they will probably get rid of it.

There are some illneses and disabilities which should be a life time award as it is obvious they will never improve and it is just a waste of money to ask these people to have an annual medical as well as causing needless stress.

I've had enough medical tests this year, (2 MRIs, 3 standard eyes tests and 1 test for eye activity stuff) why do I need any more? or is what my qualified consultants do not good enough? That's the problem - many have enough tests done, which can be painful.

I've had enough medical tests this year, (2 MRIs, 3 standard eyes tests and 1 test for eye activity stuff) why do I need any more? or is what my qualified consultants do not good enough? That's the problem - many have enough tests done, which can be painful.

Exactly why I said some people should have no further need for a medical examination - unless the Government knows who is handing out miracle cures.

There are some illneses and disabilities which should be a life time award as it is obvious they will never improve and it is just a waste of money to ask these people to have an annual medical as well as causing needless stress. Also it is not just the honesty of the claimants in filling in the DLA forms as they usually have to be backed up with consultants and Doctors reports.

 

DLA is an acknowledgement that those on benefits for a long time need more financial help than those on JSA which is basically a benefit which gives you enough to scrape by on until you find a new job, but is not meant to sustain someone for years. DLA is also a way of providing extra support for those that need that extra help to be able to work. It should be kept totally separate from ESA. Although I suppose that although they are saying they are changing DLA to PIP it is probably just a stepping stone on the way to Universal Credit where they will probably get rid of it.

Very few illnesses are for a lifetime. Medication can improve the quality of life as could surgery. Yes I will agree that there are some conditions that will never improve irrespective of drugs or surgery.

The waste of money is having separate assessments being carried out for the DWP for each type of benefit claim. Far cheaper to have a combined one. Then how do the DWP decided who should and who shouldn't have an annual assessment? Yes those that have a terminal prognosis of less than 6 months should be exempt of course.

A GP's or Consultant's report is only as good as on the day it was given. In order to catch those that do have improvements in their health but fail to notify, it will only be fair to assess everybody. Otherwise the DWP will stand accused of picking and choosing, with those chosen complaining - why me?

DLA is nothing more than a payment that will be used by the claimant to pay the costs created by the extra needs they have. It has nothing to do with "an acknowledgement that those on benefits for a long time need more financial help than those on JSA".

ESA & DLA are two different benefits with different criteria, but it would not take someone with a PHD to devise a medical that covered all of the criteria including IIDB and AA.

Universal Credit I see as the opportunity to re-examine those claimants on an annual basis simply to satisfy the general public that their money is going to those that truly qualify and need it. I could also argue that ALL benefits should be means tested, as someone earning 1/2 million a year should be precluded from these benefits. But that is another problem to be solved at a later date.

Personally, I have no objection to being assessed against the relevant criteria on an annual basis if it results in those currently receiving benefits, but not entitled to it are taken off.

I've had enough medical tests this year, (2 MRIs, 3 standard eyes tests and 1 test for eye activity stuff) why do I need any more? or is what my qualified consultants do not good enough? That's the problem - many have enough tests done, which can be painful.

With respect those are medical tests carried out soley for the purposes of treatment.

They have absolutely nothing to do with qualifying for a benefit using the criteria set down by the government.

I have CT scans every 4 months, blood tests every month, MRI scans once a year, retinal scan every year, not including the US scans, and physical examinations every 6 weeks.

Those do not mean that I shouldn't have to qualify under the present DLA criteria for benefit, never mind ESA.

As for medical cures, you are getting yourself confused with treatment and the criteria which you must pass to qualify for DLA.

That is why an OT (HCP) is far more appropriate to assess your abilities than your GP or Consultant is.

With respect those are medical tests carried out soley for the purposes of treatment.

They have absolutely nothing to do with qualifying for a benefit using the criteria set down by the government.

My snellen tests proves that I have vision which is severe enough for me to need help reading - that's at least 3 DLA criteria.

That is why an OT (HCP) is far more appropriate to assess your abilities than your GP or Consultant is.

The chances of an OT knowing about a condition which affects less than 200 people in the UK is virtually nil. My consultant is far more qualified - or are you seriously questioning their ability to know about my disabilities? OTs don't know about specialised stuff. I am waiting to be diagnosed with 2 disabilities - one is on the milder end of the scale - how is the OT meant to know anything about my disabilities?

My snellen tests proves that I have vision which is severe enough for me to need help reading - that's at least 3 DLA criteria.

 

 

 

The chances of an OT knowing about a condition which affects less than 200 people in the UK is virtually nil. My consultant is far more qualified - or are you seriously questioning their ability to know about my disabilities? OTs don't know about specialised stuff. I am waiting to be diagnosed with 2 disabilities - one is on the milder end of the scale - how is the OT meant to know anything about my disabilities?

You don't have to try to convince me - you have to convince the DWP when you are tested against the relevant criteria.

Why would you object to regular annual reviews if it meant that you could hold your head up high and say that 'I am entitled as I am reviewed by the DWP on a regular basis'?

To me those that object to more in depth regular reviews have something to hide and are seriously worried about the loss of their benefit.

Oh for christs sake! I undergo enough tests each year and have to constantly prove that my vision is till severe enough for me not to legally hold a driving licence, that the fluid / mass on my brain hasn't got any bigger, that my eyes haven't got any worse, that the pressure in my eyes is normal and that I don't have severe damage to my spine. Why isn't that good enough? Many of those tests are painful. Why should I have to go through any more medical tests?

Why would I need annual reviews? I am not going to suddenly wake up tomorrow and be cured. That is unlikely to ever happen - unless there's a cure for missing optic nerve fibres and brain damage.

Oh for christs sake! I undergo enough tests each year and have to constantly prove that my vision is till severe enough for me not to legally hold a driving licence, that the fluid / mass on my brain hasn't got any bigger, that my eyes haven't got any worse, that the pressure in my eyes is normal and that I don't have severe damage to my spine. Why isn't that good enough? Many of those tests are painful. Why should I have to go through any more medical tests?

Why would I need annual reviews? I am not going to suddenly wake up tomorrow and be cured. That is unlikely to ever happen - unless there's a cure for missing optic nerve fibres and brain damage.

I have nothing to hide; but I don't understand why I've got to go test after test to prove I have a disability. Why aren't my consultants' reports good enough? They're the ones who went to medical school for years and studied - not ATOS or decision makers.

Oh for christs sake! I undergo enough tests each year and have to constantly prove that my vision is till severe enough for me not to legally hold a driving licence, that the fluid / mass on my brain hasn't got any bigger, that my eyes haven't got any worse, that the pressure in my eyes is normal and that I don't have severe damage to my spine. Why isn't that good enough? Many of those tests are painful. Why should I have to go through any more medical tests?

 

Why would I need annual reviews? I am not going to suddenly wake up tomorrow and be cured. That is unlikely to ever happen - unless there's a cure for missing optic nerve fibres and brain damage.

Unfortunately the DWP see it different, as do the majority of the UK taxpayers. To satisfy them that you are entitled to receive taxpayers money, you are responsible to hold yourself out to be examined on a regular basis. We can't have a situation that some do and some don't as that could lead to cases falling down the cracks. Better that everyone is tested annually to ensure that only those claimants receive taxpayers money.

My suggestion is to try and get away from the different assessments for different benefits. That is a waste of valuable money. Better to have one assessment that is devised to cover ALL benefits in one go.

The majority of tax payers think so do they,maybe the majority of tax avoiders do.Incidently I am a tax payer and dont claim any benefits and I am disgusted with the way ATOS appears to be working.

Everyone is a tax payer in some form, so your argument makes no sense. Why would ATOS's assessment be better than a qualified GP / consultant who has access to their patients notes?

Hi Nystagmite

I presume your comment aimed at taraquin ,who seems to be trotting out the Goverments propagander,(the majority of Taxpayers etc)I have had a look at the infamous ESA50 and how it could be determined that you are fit or unfit for work on the basis of it beggers belief.I actually came across an ATOS doctor at a works medical ,and I soon realised he had no interest in giving his opinion at all,and all he did was take the companies line.I told him he was a "poor tool"a local expression meaning he was crap, and he flipped and we had a blazing argument outside the consulting room until he said"and you expect me to keep patient confidentiality" I went nose to nose with him and told him he hadnt got a choice.Thats about 8 years ago and I wish I had his name cos I bet he is one of the assesors now.Apparently this quack thought I had called him a "Porthole"so what ever the significance of that was I dont know.I agree with you nystagmite that it is pointless having to undergo numerous sham medicals with ATOS,when you are being seen by properly qualified doctors/consultants.