nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

PIP MR PA6 report

braca

If MR is sent back to IAS/Capita by DWP would it be HP supervisor who looks over the PA4 and further evidence ? going by my PA6 report it would seem HP has taken time to read over points highlighted in my evidence and awarded points...same evidence was available at FTF review and HP maybe did not have the time to go over this ?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

braca

Yes @ilovecats descriptor 6 issue rectified .

Advice and justification by HP who did MR to DWP case manager was to make award . My own opinion are that HP are put under time constraints by their own management teams to ensure they are getting daily workload done, Last year I went through traumatic experience with major operation and two close family bereavements and diagnosed with skin cancer that had effect on my mood and anxiety and along with back pain, daily bladder incontinence and fatigue, all of this was evidenced in consultant letters sent to DWP before my F2F review. HP said I presented well at MSE and was accompanied by my wife and yes I agree as try to put on a brave face, If only HP could have looked at my evidence properly all this MR nonsense could have been avoided and not forgetting 12 week wait for decision.

braca

Before anyone mentions its the effects on a daily basis and not just being diagnosed with conditions that gets you points for descriptors.
( change of advice ) - PA6
Excerpt
The functional history indicates this gentleman has difficulty managing stairs but can manage short journeys reliably. Whilst the MSO was unremarkable it is clear from the evidence from the pain clinic and his pain medication that this gentleman's main restriction to his function is his pain. This is consistent with his medical history. Therefore it is medically reasonable to state this gentleman would require aids to minimise bending and to reduce pain and enable him to manage his toileting needs and to dress lower body reliably most days and would be limited to mobilising up to 20 metres in order to manage this distance reliably most days.

At F2F review HP justification choice moving around. MSE shows he did not look tired. IO noted he walked with normal pace and gait. Although he reports that pain impacts on his mobility this is back and abdominal pain. Whilst he has been referred to the pain clinic ( had already attended pain clinic and sent report with other evidence ) He is not prescribed significantly high levels of pain medication.

Pain medication prescribed by consultant doctors 700 mg medicated plaster ( morphine based prolonged release pain relief used in the management of chronic severe pain ) Tens machine used for back pain relief, Codeine phosphate 30mg, Paracetamol, Mindfulness techniques recommended by Pain psychology and ongoing treatment.

Two different HPs one did not appear to have read evidence and applied own opinion/assumptions to report for DWP

The other HP at MR stage almost certainly read evidence and applied it correctly in report to DWP.

What is solution to all this ?????

twonker

braca said:

Yes @ilovecats descriptor 6 issue rectified .

Advice and justification by HP who did MR to DWP case manager was to make award . My own opinion are that HP are put under time constraints by their own management teams to ensure they are getting daily workload done, Last year I went through traumatic experience with major operation and two close family bereavements and diagnosed with skin cancer that had effect on my mood and anxiety and along with back pain, daily bladder incontinence and fatigue, all of this was evidenced in consultant letters sent to DWP before my F2F review. HP said I presented well at MSE and was accompanied by my wife and yes I agree as try to put on a brave face, If only HP could have looked at my evidence properly all this MR nonsense could have been avoided and not forgetting 12 week wait for decision.

Unfortunately it is human nature to always try to put a brave face on things. Who actually wants to look absolutely miserable and affected by poor mental health?
How many times are you asked how are you only to reply I'm OK how are you?

braca

Although happy to have gained award at MR stage !! surely the whole system is flawed and not fit for purpose, I admire Ilovecats for giving information from an ex assessor point of view regarding meeting descriptors, but assessors are ignoring vital evidence that is vital to claimants getting awarded PIP and in my opinion is because their own management are putting time constraints on them and they are adjusting reports to suit and going by majority of posts on this forum this is being interpreted as lies being told by HP assessor. the Stress of all this is definitely not good for anyone's health HP from IAS/Capita included and maybe why many do not stay in the job for too long ??

yanhow1

Question for ilovecats really,
I’m suffering excruciating chronic pain including nerve pain and phantom pain, I can hardly walk a few paces without having to stop as I cannot put weight through my left side any longer,
I believe that’s enough to say I can’t walk 20mtrs,
But if I’m taking a high dose of pain killers and they help with the pain, does that mean I can automatically walk 200mtrs ? To an assessor I mean.

twonker

yanhow1

can’t win either way then!
what on earth is “walking reliably “ and how in gods name could anyone possibly prove They couldn’t ?
BTW I stopped taking huge doses of tramadol and amatryptaline 10 yrs ago as they were ineffective, they did however completely zombiefy me,

cristobal

@yanhow1 -

When the assessor decides which descriptor applies to you, they must consider whether you can carry out the activity reliably.

This means:

safely in a way that is unlikely to cause harm either to you or anyone else, either during the activity or afterwards
to an acceptable standard
repeatedly as often as is reasonably required
in a reasonable time period - should take you no more than twice as long someone without your condition

yanhow1

Not long ago whilst I was walking with both my sticks from my cares car to my front door, I had to stop to take the weight of my left side,
somehow I lost my balance and fell backwards,
My leg and false leg couldn’t keep up and my carer couldn’t catch me, ( I’m 16st and she’s not )
I fell against a kerb and broke a rib and a vertebra in my back.

Is that under the “ safely “ part ? I think probably not,
How could I possibly prove that fall was due to pain ?

Yes I could prove I broke bones but not how or why.

therefore this will most likely be ignored until tribunal.

poppy123456

It will depend how often you lose your balance and fall. If you're affected at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period then yes. If you fell once then no, it's not counted.

yanhow1

How do I prove I fall that much ??
If I fell once every 5yrs or 5 times a day it makes no difference!
Nobody would just take my word and proof is not available.

yanhow1

What if I keep falling over but someone keeps catching me, does that count ?

twonker

Now this is getting silly

twonker

yanhow1 said:

can’t win either way then!

How do you work that out? If you are in pain to that extent and because of that pain cannot walk reliably then points should be awarded.
However if medication removes that pain to a larger degree than obviously your walking will improve.

Which way would you rather have it? Be in permanent agony and unable to walk or take the medication, have a better lifestyle but obviously would not get the points?
Surely the latter is far more important when compared to say £58 a week?

yanhow1

Shame you didn’t answer the unfunny question,

I didn’t think a little light hearted humour would hurt,

I’m soooo sorry, I feel terrible,

cristobal

@yanhow1 - I'm not 100% certain but in relation to the 'safely' part of the reliability criteria I think that the assessor has to balance the likelihood of something unfortunate happening vs the potential consequences, as happens in most Health & Safety situations.

As an example:- if you fall regularly and are generally uninjured then that might be an acceptable risk as the consequences are minor (unless you are very unlucky)

If you have memory problems and, even once a month, you let a pan boil dry this would most likely not be not be 'acceptable' as even though it doesn't happen very often the potential consequences are disastrous...

Hope this makes sense...

wildlife

Yes but what evidence can you supply for memory problems other than a diary, family letter etc if your Doctor has decided tests would not have any positive outcome and even cause distress knowing you are at risk of Dementia as my GP has done with me. For the walking it's a good idea to try and visit your GP who will see any injuries and put them on record.
@braca I'm wondering why you are referring to a PA6 for your MR and not a PA5. Did you have 2 MR's? Before anyone says that's not possible you'd be wrong because I managed to get another review after my MR.
I completely get what you are saying about the system not being fit for purpose. Most people would say you got the result in the end so what is the problem. However it highlights even more the injustice of the first decision.

cristobal

@wildlife -

the 'evidence' I used was a report from my consultant who, rather helpfully, said that I was 'already showing signs of decline in cognitive function' (or something similar. Memory/ cognitive loss is acknowledged as part of my condition.) I also attached a diary with notes of incidents such as leaving the oven on, letting pans boil dry etc, dropping pans etc

I acknowledge that many people will say that I could have just made it up but, the way I see it, that could apply to everything that I wrote on the form. I took a decision to stop cooking before I caused a serious incident - even if an assessor doesn't believe me at the positive thing is that I'm safe now that my wife is cooking. Well, fairly safe anyway!!

I have had memory tests - remembering an address, 100 - 7 - 7 etc but as far as I can work out you have to be really bad before you are referred anywhere.

yanhow1

twonker said:

yanhow1 said:

can’t win either way then!

How do you work that out? If you are in pain to that extent and because of that pain cannot walk reliably then points should be awarded.
However if medication removes that pain to a larger degree than obviously your walking will improve.

Which way would you rather have it? Be in permanent agony and unable to walk or take the medication, have a better lifestyle but obviously would not get the points?
Surely the latter is far more important when compared to say £58 a week?

Let me tell you how I work that out twonker!

If I have the choice of being in agony and not be able to walk very far, BUT still be able to watch the telly or talk or something.
OR being drugged up to the eyeballs to the extent of not even being remotely coherent to others and most of the time asleep,
I absolutely know which one I’d choose....AND I CHOSE PAIN !,

That’s which way I’d “rather have it” !

Is that your expert medical opinion is it ? That I’d have a better life taking medication.

As I said after 10 yrs of medication I gave up as they were ineffective,
you may have read that in my post !
So being incoherent and still in pain was NOT an option,
Another point being; 10yrs of high doses of any medication doesn’t do the liver any good, as I found out to cirrhosis .
Doctors will tell you that if you ask !

as for the money ?? “ say £58 a week “ , who said I want £58 a week ?
you have no idea whether I need £2 or £2000 that doesn’t come into it,
I find your comments offensive and sanctimonious at best,, your implying I’m only in this for the money,

I cant work and I don’t drive but I need money to get to hospital appointments,
I shouldn’t have to justify to you if or why I need PIP !

Scenario:
If I DON’T take medication because I don’t want them,I get marked down as I’m not on medication,
If I take medication I get marked down as I’m on medication,
Can you not see what I’m saying ?

Why should anyone have to shovel drugs down their throat to get the help they need ?
or not apparently!

yanhow1

cristobal said:

@yanhow1 - I'm not 100% certain but in relation to the 'safely' part of the reliability criteria I think that the assessor has to balance the likelihood of something unfortunate happening vs the potential consequences, as happens in most Health & Safety situations.

As an example:- if you fall regularly and are generally uninjured then that might be an acceptable risk as the consequences are minor (unless you are very unlucky)

If you have memory problems and, even once a month, you let a pan boil dry this would most likely not be not be 'acceptable' as even though it doesn't happen very often the potential consequences are disastrous...

Hope this makes sense...

Thanks for that, much better answer ,
makes very good sense.

Component react.suggestedcontent had an error.

The value must be greater than or equal to 1.

Sign in or register for free

Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering