(PIP) Be VERY careful what you ask your GP for

Florine

We've just received the Statement of Reasons for my caree's appeal - it was very illuminating.

Brief history: caree with a fluctuating condition transferring from DLA to PIP, originally awarded zero points in both categories.  Certainly deserved 12 points in the mobility category as unable to mobilise more than 20 metres.  Caree (C) also housebound and therefore couldn't attend the appeal.  First appeal session adjourned for non-attendance: tribunal directed DWP to submit paperwork for previous DLA and ESA assessments (they didn't); directed us to submit evidence from GP plus C's medical records.

I wrote the request to the GP, hoping to give her some indications of the points we needed her to address: she was very keen to help.  Unfortunately, she misunderstood the descriptors, and what she wrote was not very helpful.  I winced when I saw it, but because the tribunal had directed us to submit it (and we were very near the deadline, so had no time to revise it) I believed I was obliged to send it in.  GP's comments were that C in the past decade could "rarely" walk 200 metres, and that she "often" requires a wheelchair to go any distance.

As I've probably pointed out on here before, GPs are rarely in a position to comment on how the PIP descriptors affect a patient's life, and this is an excellent example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous.  She has no real idea of how far C can walk, having never seen her walk further than from the surgery waiting-room to her office, or how her condition affects her ability e.g. to prepare meals, etc.  She'd obviously read an overview of the PIP process and decided that although she perhaps couldn't commit to saying that C couldn't walk 20 metres, confirming that she couldn't manage 200 metres would be enough, because after all, 200 metres is the limit beyond which you can't claim, isn't it?  As a professional person, and clearly being reluctant to commit herself to anything she couldn't be certain was true, she was over-generous in her estimation of how far C might be able to walk.  So her "evidence" actually contradicted, or at least undermined, C's case, indicating the possibility that she might on occasions being able to walk 200 m, and didn't necessarily always need to use a wheelchair to go out.

Result: at its second session (again unattended), the tribunal found that C was entitled to standard rate mobility because her ESA had her in the Support Group as being unable to walk more than 50 metres - but not the high rate, which she should have had.  She's now gone over pension age, so can't put in a fresh PIP application, but is stuck with this low award for the rest of her life - or at least until such time that the Government moves the gateposts again and decides to reassess even the older claimants.

So, if you can, be very careful what you submit from your GP. It's difficult, but if you have time and the opportunity, go over it with a fine-tooth comb and see if you can get it amended if there's anything that might harm your case.  Hugely difficult given the pressure on GPs to do other things, though.

pollyanna1052

sorry to hear how wrong it went.

wilko

Hello, yes you have to be proactive in your health care ect. For example I had a unexpected four day stay in hospital last year, my discharge notes stated I could walk 100 meters using a stick. After contacting the ward clerk who did her best to contact the author of the report many weekly phone calls a consultant phoned me and after explaining the mistake and reasoning I needed it corrected the mater was resolved and an updated letter with correct distance  mentioned sent to myself and GP. Had you spotted the error and contacted your GP I am sure this could have been amended and your award given .

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

skullcap

Florine said:

We've just received the Statement of Reasons for my caree's appeal - it was very illuminating.

Brief history: caree with a fluctuating condition transferring from DLA to PIP, originally awarded zero points in both categories.  Certainly deserved 12 points in the mobility category as unable to mobilise more than 20 metres.  Caree (C) also housebound and therefore couldn't attend the appeal.  First appeal session adjourned for non-attendance: tribunal directed DWP to submit paperwork for previous DLA and ESA assessments (they didn't); directed us to submit evidence from GP plus C's medical records.

I wrote the request to the GP, hoping to give her some indications of the points we needed her to address: she was very keen to help.  Unfortunately, she misunderstood the descriptors, and what she wrote was not very helpful.  I winced when I saw it, but because the tribunal had directed us to submit it (and we were very near the deadline, so had no time to revise it) I believed I was obliged to send it in.  GP's comments were that C in the past decade could "rarely" walk 200 metres, and that she "often" requires a wheelchair to go any distance.

As I've probably pointed out on here before, GPs are rarely in a position to comment on how the PIP descriptors affect a patient's life, and this is an excellent example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous.  She has no real idea of how far C can walk, having never seen her walk further than from the surgery waiting-room to her office, or how her condition affects her ability e.g. to prepare meals, etc.  She'd obviously read an overview of the PIP process and decided that although she perhaps couldn't commit to saying that C couldn't walk 20 metres, confirming that she couldn't manage 200 metres would be enough, because after all, 200 metres is the limit beyond which you can't claim, isn't it?  As a professional person, and clearly being reluctant to commit herself to anything she couldn't be certain was true, she was over-generous in her estimation of how far C might be able to walk.  So her "evidence" actually contradicted, or at least undermined, C's case, indicating the possibility that she might on occasions being able to walk 200 m, and didn't necessarily always need to use a wheelchair to go out.

Result: at its second session (again unattended), the tribunal found that C was entitled to standard rate mobility because her ESA had her in the Support Group as being unable to walk more than 50 metres - but not the high rate, which she should have had.  She's now gone over pension age, so can't put in a fresh PIP application, but is stuck with this low award for the rest of her life - or at least until such time that the Government moves the gateposts again and decides to reassess even the older claimants.

So, if you can, be very careful what you submit from your GP. It's difficult, but if you have time and the opportunity, go over it with a fine-tooth comb and see if you can get it amended if there's anything that might harm your case.  Hugely difficult given the pressure on GPs to do other things, though.

Having it amended will result in both reports being sent to the Tribunal, the first one and the amended one. Also, and this is what the Tribunal will be looking for, will be the letters/telephone conversation from the claimant to the GP in trying to suggest what the GP should say.
Sometimes it is better not to contact your GP at least that way there can be no negative information passed over. 

Florine

Username_removed said:

Extremely sorry to hear this @Florine but your post is an excellent example of why there are very very limited circumstances in which a claimant should approach their GP. Have you explored an application for leave to appeal to the UT? Most tribunals err in law in some way so have an adviser cast an expert eye over it as finding an error of law is now the only route for you to open the errors of fact. 

One further observation. You ARE actually obliged to present all relevant evidence so you had no choice but to submit the letter. Again this is an excellent reason as to why people need face to face advice and a detailed assessment of the merits if they’re case before attempting to obtain further evidence.

Thanks, Mike.  Sorry for the delay in replying, but I'm not getting notifications on this thread, and didn't realise there were unanswered replies.  I haven't "explored" the application for leave to appeal yet, but was certainly considering it, although what effect Covid-19 has had on all that I dread to think.  I don't currently have an adviser, and am not too sure where to turn on that front, since a lot of the advice-giving organisations don't appear to be qualified to deal with UT cases.  I'm assuming that CAB won't be able to help - and will probably be overrun anyway at the moment?

Thanks also for the confirmation that we were obliged to submit the evidence - that was what I thought, so I don't understand how the DWP were able to withhold their paperwork which, as I mentioned on another thread I think, included a re-reconsideration which gave C 12 points on personal care instead of the 7 or whatever she had previously.  I wondered if a decision taken without reference to the DWP's paperwork might itself be counted as a error of law.

IanHaines

My GP has done such incredible reports/letters for me, during benefit application traumas (I don't call them processes), that my actual welfare advisor asked for the GP's permission to print a copy out, without names or addresses showing, and PUT IT UP, IN THE WELFARE ADVICE CENTRE as a perfect example of how GP's reports/letters should be!  The advisor tells me that claimants often photograph the one on the wall and show it to their own GPs, in the hope that the same approach could be taken, to accompany their forms!

skullcap

IanHaines said:

My GP has done such incredible reports/letters for me, during benefit application traumas (I don't call them processes), that my actual welfare advisor asked for the GP's permission to print a copy out, without names or addresses showing, and PUT IT UP, IN THE WELFARE ADVICE CENTRE as a perfect example of how GP's reports/letters should be!  The advisor tells me that claimants often photograph the one on the wall and show it to their own GPs, in the hope that the same approach could be taken, to accompany their forms!

I am so surprised although it depends on it's contents. A GP would not normally (unless they lived with you) know how your life is impacted with reference to the PIP descriptors. Anything that you describe to the GP is just that - 3rd hand hearsay evidence which may or may not be true. If a GP does describe issues it would normally start with - My patient tells me......

skullcap

Username_removed said:

If DWP withheld paperwork and that can be evidenced then that’s more grounds for a set aside than an error of law.

But surely only if it is relevant to the appeal in question? Or are you suggesting that if the DWP hold evidence in another file for another benefit or even a previous or earlier face to face assessment they are required to disclose all of it?

If that is the case then there must be thousands of appeals that have gone through the system where for example the DWP had failed to disclose a previous DLA claim and award or maybe an ESA one. Maybe there is relevant evidence in say a claim for Industrial Injuries from years ago that might also have been relevant
I do wonder where you would want to draw the line. 

Florine

skullcap said:

Username_removed said:

If DWP withheld paperwork and that can be evidenced then that’s more grounds for a set aside than an error of law.

But surely only if it is relevant to the appeal in question? Or are you suggesting that if the DWP hold evidence in another file for another benefit or even a previous or earlier face to face assessment they are required to disclose all of it?

Ah yes, set aside.  I believe we were out of time for that anyway.

The re-reconsideration *would* be relevant: it was in the bundle of C's paperwork that the DWP were supposed to have submitted to the tribunal, but didn't, and the only reason I know about it was because we submitted a subject access request for the same papers once it became obvious that the DWP weren't going to comply.  It was dated inbetween the two tribunals, but unfortunately, it didn't arrive until after the second tribunal.

skullcap

Florine said:

Ah yes, set aside.  I believe we were out of time for that anyway.

The re-reconsideration *would* be relevant: it was in the bundle of C's paperwork that the DWP were supposed to have submitted to the tribunal, but didn't, and the only reason I know about it was because we submitted a subject access request for the same papers once it became obvious that the DWP weren't going to comply.  It was dated inbetween the two tribunals, but unfortunately, it didn't arrive until after the second tribunal.

So the first you knew about it was via FOI request?
I can't see that every claimant should have to go to that length. If that was the case all of the evidence, most of it relevant and some reasonably recent (within 5 years) that is contained in previous benefit claims and award should be obtained? I would be surprised that the DWP hold files going back more than 12 months.

worried33

bekindalways said:

@Florine i'm sorry to hear that you feel that way about your GP.   I can only imagine your frustration and disappointment.

To place a title on here is suggestive that 100% of doctors do not understand any persons illness.  That I am afraid to say is inconsistent with the valuable and supportive work doctors do....... yes, I include my own. (Since retired but transferred to someone else who has a similar understanding)

I can only try to explain my own circumstances....  it is not about my doctor.... it is ALL about the doctors surgery from the lowly, yet indispensable receptionists who get grief from people.. (me included on two occasions....over 10 years) 

Please try not to judge doctors in general on here.  Your comment will deter some from talking with honesty and frankness to their own doctor, in the belief that your comment means that all doctors are the same....  this isn't true on any level.

I genuinely wish you well and whilst I am not qualified to give advice, I would urge you to speak to a doctor within your surgery, who understands the illnesses you have and their impact on your daily living and/or mobility. 

In fairness, not all doctors are versed to understand the PIP system.  Please therefore don't blame them for any statement they made. You would have been given a copy like others. You will have read it and forwarded to the DWP as part of your evidence.     So please try if you can, not to tar all GP's with the same brush.  

Mine and others in my local practice are truly amazing.

Best wishes xxx

Agreed, people seem to be very negative about GPs on here, and they shouldnt all be tarnished with the same brush, my current GP and my old GP have been very good to me, whilst consultants seemed to be just in a rush to discharge me, its important if you want your GP to understand your conditions, to keep in touch with them regurly, and always keep using the same GP instead of seeing different ones every time, but even then a GP might have their own opinion on what can be managed, and professionally they cannot lie.

When I gave my GP the form to fill in that was supplied by a welfare rights group (the one that confused poppy), I didnt ask my GP to recommend specific descriptors, the GP picked out the ones based on her medical opinion and knowledge of my well being. 

What surprised me with this appeal though, is that the DWP were asked to supply evidence, they refused, and it was simply acceptance of the refusal, as that was to me a warning sign that the DWP perhaps wouldnt to submit as the evidence would have supported the claimant.  So I would have pushed that regardless of deadlines.

worried33

One could argue though that far too many assume it wont be useful, and so dont even try to get it from their GP.  The argument can be made both ways. 

On a site like this, it will be loaded with negative experiences, we wont hear from the many people that claim PIP, and get an award without hassle, and those people may include who get good supportive evidence from their GP's.  So I do think its wrong to be telling people that its a majority experience because none of us know that.

I agree be careful in just blindly supplying that evidence, read it first to make sure it supports your case, if it doesnt, then dont submit it.

worried33

Your point #2 is interesting because someone on here posted the DWP refused a tribunal request for evidence and then the tribunal simply moved on from the request.

I do agree with most of what you just said, if the case is strong enough without GP evidence then it may not be needed, but thats different to a blanket statement telling people to never get their evidence from their GPs because its always going to be useless, some of us know the sort of information we would need rather than asking for silly things like confirmation of medication and diagnosis which wouldnt be of much use.

On your point #1, legal representative's will commonly pick and choose evidence they use to support their cases in courts, its common practice in the uk legal system, and indeed people I personally know who work for welfare organisations will advise their clients the same, that doesnt mean I think you wrong, its just interesting you disagree with that, if the tribunal finds that a letter was requested, it doesnt mean anything unless they were specifically told that letter had evidence supporting the DWP case.  Otherwise they cannot make assumptions, as cases are supposed to be decided on facts not assumptions.  A letter that isnt supportive isnt necessarily the opposite, it could just be the information provided is deemed not relevant and so doesnt get used.  If I asked my gp for a letter and it was something stupid like just a list of my medication I would probably not supply it, as I can just show my medication to the visiting HCP on the f2f.

worried33

thanks for the info

 wont comment further as we be going in circles.

Florine

Username_removed said:

A late set aside application is perfectly possible.

Oh really?  I hadn't realised that.

Florine

worried33 said:

I agree be careful in just blindly supplying that evidence, read it first to make sure it supports your case, if it doesnt, then dont submit it.

Not an option in this case, since the tribunal had ordered it.  Or so I thought.  The DWP obviously decided differently.

Florine

Username_removed said:

2 - the tribunal procedure rules require that all parties submit what they have. 

Mike, many thanks for carrying on with this in my absence    Yes, ^ that was exactly what I'd assumed.  Yet the DWP ignored it, not submitting evidence which would if anything have supported our case.  It doesn't seem fair to me that they can get away with that.

worried33

Mike can I ask you to please point to where in the document it states that any evidence acquired that hasnt been specifically asked for must be presented as you quoted you cant pick and choose your evidence, I passed the document on to the welfare group and they told me there is no reference to it, I checked it as well myself and there isnt anything there saying that.

Thank you.

Florine

worried33 said:

Mike can I ask you to please point to where in the document it states that any evidence acquired that hasnt been specifically asked for must be presented as you quoted you cant pick and choose your evidence,

I think this has got rather off-track, given that the evidence WAS specifically asked for and wasn't presented

Mike, thank you very much for your patience, and your pretty exhaustive response above!