Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit taken away

[limasierra]

Thankyou for your support jacobsl, I'm sorry you're still being put through the mill.

 

This word - 'constitutional'...............seems to be very popular amongst the people employed by ATOS.

I think they're just hoping to wear people down with the stress involved in fighting their corner but you really do need somewhow to get an advocate if you don't feel you can get a good submission written on your own.

Press on to Tribunal anyway, at least you can get the opportunity to explain your situation in your own words which is very therapeutic and try to have someone with you for support.

Good luck and let me know how things go for you.

[niness]

Hi, I'm in a similar situation to 'jacobsl' and I wondered what experience anyone has had of the Upper Tribunal. I recently lost a tribunal, then the good lady from the CAB was made redundant due to their funding being cut and those left couldn't look at my case for some time. Legal aid is not given for this IIDB tribunals apparently so I'm going to have to try it myself. I keep getting told I can only appeal on a point of law, but why doesn't untrue statements in the Statement of Reasons count as a point of law.

[limasierra]

Hi Niness

 

It should count of course. I'm afraid I don't have any experience of the Upper Tribunal, so I can't help you there.

 

Did your written submission (presume you did one?) for the Tribunal spell out clearly the difference between what had been written about you and how your condition currently affects you with regard to the initial injury?

 

Also did you provide any relevant written medical evidence to back it up?

 

You may have to do quite a bit of research to get ready for the Upper Tribunal if you can't get any help from CAB/law centres etc.

I would do as much searching on the internet as possible for some form of help.

 

My case was quite outrageous with the totally false report that had been written.

The decision of this 'doctor' went against TEN previous boards and completely ignored the most graphic medical evidence of the injuries I've suffered.

I'd say it was malpractice.

 

I hope you succeed in the next stage of your appeal, do as much research as you can,

All the best.

[jacobsl]

Thank you for your reply limasierra.

 

I have tried to get an advocate but living in France now means that any funding for the CAB and other agencies in the UK can only help people living there.

 

I am hoping that this new evidence from the spinal traumatology specialist that I recently saw will help, as the industrial injuries people have kept saying I haven't any fresh contradicting evidence in support of my case. I think it is a money saving ploy on the part of the DWP. I was awarded 60% disability and all the stress over the last 18 months since losing my benefit has made my symptoms worse and although I am normally a mentally strong person, I feel mentally drained. I don't need to tell you how draining being in constant pain is but as I cannot tolerate any medication (I was on 300mg of morphine twice a day) because the headaches/migraines I get several times a week since the accident, I don't get any respite.

 

Can you please tell me, if you don't mind, how you presented your case and how your advocate helped at your appeal so that I may benefit from your experience. How did you challenge the opinion that was given you that your pain and disability was 'constitutional'?

[limasierra]

Basically jacobsl it meant the CAB submission itemised what happened to me medically as opposed to what the 'doctor' had written plus providing written evidence from the consultants concerned and a very detailed and supportive letter from my GP.

 

This evidence was indisputable - as it should have been at the initial assessment but was completely ignored - plus the decision maker handing the reins over to ATOS even though she returned the assessment to ATOS querying the statement 'constitutional' as this assessment went against TEN previous boards who all found loss of faculty.

 

This is what it was. The CAB just put it in black and white and there wasn't really any debate when I attended the Tribunal.

The medical consultant wanted to hear my reponses to his questions and that was really what it was.

 

I hope this helps.

[niness]

Thanks for the info limasierra that could be a great help, and like you jacobsl, I too have the word constitutional cropping up!

I too have had ATOS medicals and several for ESA and one in particular was a fantasy and even worse had comments that were downright lies. I used a solicitor that time because I was told that if I lost the tribunal I wouldn't be able to claim Jobseekers because I was too ill to work, so I would not be entitled to anything!!! I'm looking at something called 'Financial Redress for Maladministration' to see if I can recover my costs. It's worth Googling that phrase!!!

In my case for the IIDB, ATOS dcotor actual said I had a considerable loss of faculty but the claim was initially refused by the decision maker because of the 90 day rule. When the lady from CAB saw this she was delighted because I have every page of my medical records from the hospital and GP's, (including MRI scans and X rays on CD).

However at the tribunal they went down a different road and asked about the accident etc and the medical man decided he was going to examine me. (This was so brutal I ended up on morphine for a couple of weeks afterwards, and on top of all the other medication!)

The outcome was that he said the accident couldn't have possibly caused my injury, the orthopaedic consultants report was of no interest or use, my medical evidence was not complete, I wasn't a persuasive witness, (i.e. I was telling porkies), etc etc. I suppose I should have guessed the outcome because at the previous IIDB tribunal he had accused me of play acting, in writing........... Sadly, I was so full of drugs at the time I didn't think to take it further.

[limasierra]

So sorry to read of the ordeal you've been put through Niness.

DWP/ATOS seem to make things as difficult as possible by throwing the rule book right out the window, hoping as many as possible will fall by the wayside even though they know we are genuine.

 

A very hardnosed bunch and I'm sure I'm right that the writing seems to be on the wall for Welfare Benefits as we've known them, and they'll all but cease to be replaced by private insurance as in America.

 

You were very unlucky with your Tribunal, it sounds horrendous but from what I can see it's vital you have someone with you as a witness and also to speak up for you.

 

I sincerely hope things will eventually go your way but speaking from experience it's a tough fight.

 

All the best.

[niness]

Thanks for your wishes limasierra and also good luck to you jacobsl. I completely agree with what you say about the benefits system, but after all aren't we David Cameron's welfare scroungers:-( Unfortunately my local MP is Danny Alexander, (Chief Secretary to the Treasury), as he seems seems to have just about deserted his constituency in favour of Westminster so no help there either.

 

It's not in my nature to stop fighting if I think I'm in the right, and particularly this time after contributing for so many years without claiming a penny, but I feel so sorry for those who can't fight or stand up for themselves for one reason or another. Bset wishes.

[taraquin]

I too have had a similar problem with ATOS. Having had 5 previous assessments and a whole load of independent medical reports, they came up with the idea that I have had two identical accidents!

 

What I am suffering from now is identical to what I was suffering from before, but they have taken the view that it does not relate to the original accident, but another identical one which has happened recently. They are of the opinion that the condition I had before has been cured and that I was very unfortunate in suffering another one that isn't an Indutrial accident. Without them saying in so many words, I have had two identical accidents - 16 years apart, and that I am trying it one to suggest that I am trying to get IIDB for the second accident.

 

There has only been one, but how on earth can I prove that!!

 

They have ignored all of my medical evidence saying that it is immaterial and does not relate to the incident 16 years ago, but a more recent one.

I haven't got a hope in hell in challenging it, so gave it up as a bad job.

[phillyg]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. All of the benefits system is corrupt especially when ATOS medical get involved. It seems as though they are a law to themselves.

 

Sorry to cut into someone else's post but I need some advice.

 

I have an ongoing complaint with ICE and he has brought something to my attention of which im not sure about.

 

I applied for IIDB in March 2010 and was refused. I appealed the decision and went to tribunal of which I won gaining 25% disablement.

 

Now here is what the confusion is. In the tribunals decision notice it awarded me the benefit from 7/7/2009 and the Dwp only backdated the payments to 6/12/2009.

 

ICE went to the dwp to ask why and they said they only backdate payments 3 months after receiving the application and applied the backdated payments according to law.

 

Now Ice said he thinks this is wrong as the date on the notice should be applied. If the Dwp thought that was wrong then they should have appealed the tribunals decision.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Im confused and Ice said I should appeal that decision.

 

Please help.

 

Many thanks

 

phillyg

[limasierra]

This is an interesting point and one I also queried after my previous Tribunal in 2009 when the panel backdated my increased disability to 2007 but the DWP didn't award the increased payments to that date.

 

This query was directed by my CAB adviser to CAB Specialist Support who referred to Regulation 7 SS&CS (Decisions & Appeal) which stated that.... 'the regulations provide that the effective date of a supersession that is advantageous to a claimant is the date that the claimant requests supersession. Where the supersession is based on a change of circumstances the effective date is the date of change where that date was reported within one month'.

 

I notified the change in July 2008 but I'm 99% sure it was only backdated three months.

[phillyg]

So do you think it is for the Dwp to appeal the tribuns decision?

 

Phillyg

[limasierra]

Wouldn't like to say what the DWP 'should do' phillyg, but from what you've written and based on my experience it looks like the DWP are sticking to backdating awards for three months, in your case it's interesting that you have won the award for three months prior to your initial application, and not just from the date you first applied.

 

Wonder why the Tribunals can see that our conditions go back to a certain date but the DWP use 'rules' to say different.

 

Anybody else with any further examples or information?

[sj01]

Hi, I have my yearly assesment this week.

I have had no surgery or any consultants letters this year, just my prescription medicine.

I have had all of the treatment for the time being so will just have to rely on my medical examination.

Last time I went they said that if I was still the same this time they would give me the benefit for life.

I'm worried, looks like they are targeting this benefit too now.

[limasierra]

Fingers crossed sj01 that your assessment will be reported on fairly and that it will be for life.

 

I agree with you, I also think that Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit is being targeted the same as the others, trouble is there doesn't seem to be much advice online for us when it comes to appeals.

 

But 'forewarned is forearmed' so I hope my experience will be of some use to you and others.

[niness]

I would agree phillyg, I think the backdated money should be paid from the original date. After all, and based on experience, the delays are all down to the DWP and HM Courts & Tribunals Service.

 

Unfortunately I'm still a beginner, (I've only been fighting for one then two IIDB claims for 3 years), and haven't got as far as having an award made yet but any verbal communication with the IIDB section of the DWP has always indicated that any awards would be backdated to the date the claim was first made.

 

To use the illogical logic of the DWP, this could be dragged on indefinitely and you would still only get the 3 months backdated, and my best guess is that you probably waited 3 months for a Tribunal date anyway.

 

Off the top of my head I can't think who to contact but I wouldn't let it drop yet. The brilliant CAB lady that helped me has been made redundant so I can't ask her, (another part of the government master plan is to cut CAB funding so less CAB people are available to help with appeals and tribunals - clever or what). I'll keep this in mind while I do some digging this week and if I come up with anything I'll post it here.

[limasierra]

Glad you're not giving up niness, I've bought the Times today as their front page headline is devoted to the huge increase in Benefit Tribunals requiring another 80 odd judges.

A good read.

 

It's reported that the judges feel a lot of the extra work is down to 'poor decision making '. Well well.

Also it's stated that last week the government made changes to the way assessments are carried out. Anyone know where we can read up on that?

 

Surprising that TV news channels haven't bothered with this when the Times thought it was important enough to put it on the front page?????

[jacobsl]

I contacted the Tribunal Service as I had received an 'additional response', after sending in a new medical report that contradicts the Decision Maker's evidence. I wasn't sure what it meant so was told that they only take notice of expert opinions in the UK. I wasn't quick enough on the phone to say anything. You see as I live in France, for the purpose of a reassessment in 2009 I was sent for a medical here and this was arranged by the DWP. They were happy to accept that report, even though I complained in writing to them saying the medical was inadequate; the doctor had completed the form before we got there using the evidence the DWP had sent him, and he didn't speak a word of English unlike a lot of doctors here. So why say they won't accept this new medical report.

 

I have therefore phoned the Industrial Injuries today and asked for my case to be looked at again, as I believe it can be looked at again at any time. I was told that even though I had been for a Tribunal appeal in February this year and lost I could still have my case looked at again. I will send in my new medical report and see what excuse they come up with this time.

 

They are trying to say my condition is 'constitutional' and that even without the accident I would still be as I am now within a five year period from the date of the accident because I have an isthmic spondylolisthesis. The consultant I saw here in France told me, as I was pain-free before the accident my current condition has been caused by the accident and is not from a pre-existing condition.

 

I have found an excellent book written by an eminent spinal specialist in England and he has written this book from his own experience, as well as reading from other people's experience. From what I have read regarding my own condition in this book it contradicts what the Medical Examiner, the Decision Maker and the Tribunal doctor have said.

 

If my condition was 'constitutional' it would mean that it was genetic or I had inherited it. If I had this would be classed as 'primary' degeneration and so the decision that was made on me would be right. Because my condition was from a childhood accident which caused a fracture in a bone in my spine, any degeneration from that is classed as 'secondary' and so is not constitutional. Also, my condition stabilises in adulthood and doesn't cause a vulnerability or weakness or pain. Therefore the decision made on me is wrong.

 

Although I have already given the Industrial Injuries peer reviewed research evidence that contradicts their evidence they say they don't accept this. I cannot understand why not when medical experts rely on what they read to gain their knowledge and quote them in tribunal case decisions.

 

It seems one rule for them and another for us!!!

[Nystagmite]

that even without the accident I would still be as I am now within a five year period from the date of the accident because I have an isthmic spondylolisthesis.

 

How can they know this?

[limasierra]

Your last sentence says it all jacobsl, your medical reports and evidence are very valid and should be taken seriously but of course it wouldn't suit their purpose any more than it did when they rejected all mine.

Reports from very eminent spinal and neuro consultants who stated quite clearly that my worsening problems all stemmed from the initial injury.

 

All this DWP waffle is bullying and an insult to our intelligence.

No wonder the extra Tribunals are costing the government millions.

[jacobsl]

How can they know this?

 

I'm sure they make it up as they go along. But I think they are saying this, even though it's not true, because there are so many injury cases and when people are having MRI scans that show some sort of degeneration or abnormality it is easy to say that this is causing the pain so that they don't have to pay out otherwise the cost would be astronomical.

 

Apparently, the majority of the population have been found to have spinal abnormalities on MRI but are pain-free and don't mean they will lead to pain and disability. This has been known for a very long time by the medical community. The DWP just don't want to know or admit that this is true.

 

When I had my tribunal in February, I felt intimidated by the doctor because I was challenging expert knowledge.

 

I felt he was trying to bamboozle me with words. When I look back at the 'minutes' taken at the tribunal I think he was as confused as I was. At one point he actually said "There is a distinction between those who are symptomatic and those who are not". Err yeah like 'symptoms' maybe!!!

 

I think the judge must have wondered what he was getting at because she called time and stopped the hearing but by that time my brain had gone to mush anyway.

[jacobsl]

Hello everyone, I had a letter today from the Pension Service in Newcastle to say they have arranged for me to have a medical by the French authorities regarding the new ESA benefit. I have been on Incapacity Benefit since my accident at work in 2004 and a while ago I was sent the ESA50 form to complete. I didn't just tick boxes but explained as fully as I could how my pain and disability affect me. I had to go to my GP for her to complete a section and I even sent them a consultant's letter that states my disability is permanent. They obviously aren't satisfied.

 

I have lost my industrial injuries benefit for which I am appealing and it looks as though my IB could be stopped, when going by the amount of claimants that get refused or have had their benefit stopped.

 

I don't know how much more I can take.

 

I had a reassessment here in France in 2009 for my IIDB and it was a fiasco but my benefit was stopped. I am therefore dreading having another French medical. This time I am taking a French friend with me who is fluent in English.

 

Can anybody tell me how the 15 points are made up and why someone who is clearly not able to function in their everyday life is determined fit for work by the ESA assessment.

 

Thanks all.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

The descriptors are decided by the DWP. My sticky at the top of the forum titles page [in the greeny-yellow section] has a link to the descriptors pdf that is on the DWP website. The contents page should give you a clue which pages to look at, but you may need to trawl through it.

 

As to why people are deemed fit, I think only Atos know that.

 

My best, HB

[taraquin]

I too have had a similar problem with ATOS. Having had 5 previous assessments and a whole load of independent medical reports, they came up with the idea that I have had two identical accidents!

 

What I am suffering from now is identical to what I was suffering from before, but they have taken the view that it does not relate to the original accident, but another identical one which has happened recently. They are of the opinion that the condition I had before has been cured and that I was very unfortunate in suffering another one that isn't an Indutrial accident. Without them saying in so many words, I have had two identical accidents - 16 years apart, and that I am trying it one to suggest that I am trying to get IIDB for the second accident.

 

There has only been one, but how on earth can I prove that!!

 

 

 

 

They have ignored all of my medical evidence saying that it is immaterial and does not relate to the incident 16 years ago, but a more recent one.

I haven't got a hope in hell in challenging it, so gave it up as a bad job.

 

Just had a reconsideration letter. They have refused all of my medical reports etc and are adamant that the condition I have now, albeit exactly the same (PTSD) as I had from years ago, is NOT the same. I have had two illnesses of PTSD for exactly the same type of injury!!

It seems I had only just got better when all of a sudden the same thing happened to me again resulting in another bout of PTSD which is NOT an industrial accident - because I no longer work.

 

It is becoming very clear that the DWP are doing everything possible to thwart IIDB claims. Even to the point that the claimant is now having to prove that the current problems are because of the original accident, and not related to another identical one.

I give up.

[niness]

As you say limasierra, it's a good read! As for 'poor decision making', I'm beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a decision maker or is it a case of rejecting claims as a matter of course and just dealing with those that can or want to appeal.

 

So much of what you say jacobsl also rings true for me, it's uncanny how similar some things read that I'm beginning to wonder if they have a script. From your post:

The consultant I saw here in France told me, as I was pain-free before the accident my current condition has been caused by the accident and is not from a pre-existing condition.

My consultant said exactly the same thing and in addition I had a witness, both written statements were produced but dismissed completely.

 

Re the ESA assessment, it doesn't matter how the points are made up because the Atos doctors will twist what you say, ignore written evidence, lie through their teeth and make up anything so that you get zero points. I've formally complained to Atos and in return I received pages of bull, and they even went as far as blaming the Lima software package they use......................... it's a bit like saying 'the devil made me do it'. A further complaint to the GMC about the same doctor(?) resulted in nothing because they can't, (or won't), do anything about a doctor that is incompetent and lies.

 

Why do we have to play this ridiculous and painful game where we are all guilty and have to prove our innocence. In 2 years I had 2 Atos medicals [just for ESA], and on both occasions I was given zero points. I appealed against both and following tribunals I received 18 points for one and 21 points for the next!

 

It's a good job I can't work, otherwise I would never have time to fill in all the forms, make appeals, go to all these medicals and tribunals.................