PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

Should a doctor be at your appeal?

CandyflossCandyfloss Member Posts: 34 Listener
edited September 2018 in PIP, DLA and AA
Does a doctor require to be at your appeal.I found out much later that the person introduced as such was not according to the paperwork .Can I take this further on a point of law.

Replies

  • janekim96Pjanekim96P Member Posts: 44 Courageous
    Hi canyfloss I remembered years ago goin for my ESA appeal and there were 2 doctors there but it was about 6 or 7 years ago am not sure about PIP but you would think that there should be good luck with your appeal and hope your successful 😊
  • janekim96Pjanekim96P Member Posts: 44 Courageous
    Sorry Candyfloss 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,984 Disability Gamechanger

    Ignore any comments re: ESA appeals. They are constituted completely differently to PIP panels and always have been.

    At a PIP appeal there are 3 panel members UNLESS it is an appeal that concerns a failure to attend a face to face. Although it has been ruled that should also be a 3, HMCTS are inconsistent and often list FTA cases in front of a judge sitting alone.

    The usual routine is that you have a judge, a medically qualified person and a "disability qualified member". The judge will be 10 years post qualified. The medical professional will be a surgeon, specialist or consultant and the DQM is a person with experience of disability. They could be disabled, a carer, a social worker, even a welfare rights officer.

    Your summary decision will just list the members of the panel. It is likely that anyone listed as Mr. or Mrs. will be a consultant as they do not use a Dr. prefix. So, no, unless you have some concrete evidence to back up your claim there is no error of law there at all.

    The 5 errors of law are

    1) Breach of natural justice.

    2) Insufficient findings of fact.

    3) Perversity - the findings of fact don't support the subsequent decision.

    4) Getting the law itself wrong - using the wrong reg. etc.

    5) Taking into account irrelevant considerations.

Sign in or join us to comment.