mandatory reconsideration - had decision back, but it looks like they havent read supporting info

Pippa_Scope said:

Hi @zoellies, and a warm welcome to the community!

I'm sorry to hear this, and hope you get some clarification when you phone them. If you do go to tribunal, this Scope guidance may help you prepare. Do feel free to come back to us with any questions too.

https://youtu.be/67tDSlsityY

poppy123456 said:

It's the claimants responsibility to send all the evidence to support your claim, you need to prove those descriptors apply to you. It's not their responsibility to prove you qualify. They very rarely contact anyone for evidence.

A GP very rarely knows exactly how your conditions affect your ability to carry out daily activities based on the PIP descriptors.

A HCP doesn't need to be qualified in any specific condition. All conditions affect people differently. Filling out the form with as much information as possible is the best start to any claim, even for a review. The more information you put the better your chances of an award in your favour.

I'll be very surprised if they decide to have another look at the decision but i do wish you good luck.

CPIP/13/2018: Health Care Professional failure to conduct mental function assessment in reliance on what claimant said

Upper Tribunal Judge: Perez

In considering the claimant’s appeal, Judge Perez outlines what he had said on his ESA50:

“The claimant said he has brain damage (pages 11 and 44), has difficulty learning jobs (page 12), is now slower in mental processing (page 44), has a poor memory and uses a memory board to help him remember things (page 44), has trouble remembering where he is going (page 44), showed a card in his wallet where he had counted his money and written down exactly how much he had in there to remind him how much he had taken out with him (page 48), and referred in several places to taking “time” to do things: pages 22 (toilet needs), 24 (dressing) and 32  (budgeting).  He said he “used to work for Remploy but was unable to cope and left 4-5 years ago” (page 44). “

She then goes on to hold that the tribunal erred in failing to take issue with the Healthcare Professional’s (HCP’s) failure to adequately assess cognitive and intellectual functioning, and finding insufficiently supported by the evidence.

The HCP had said that –

“[The claimant] reported that he did not have any mental health difficulties that required further assessment. Therefore, a mental function assessment was not conducted at this time.

However  he said he is depressed because he lost his career and can’t do what he would like to do, but prefers to keep his depression and feelings to himself and has not consulted anyone about it”

Judge Perez holds that the HCP decision not to do “a mental function assessment” was wrong for three reasons.: 

“First, it depended on the claimant’s view of his mental health to decide not to do a “mental function assessment”.  Some descriptors are affected not just by mental ill-health, but by other problems with mental, cognitive or intellectual functioning. 

Second, even in a claimant who has not reported problems with memory or functioning, it is arguably unreasonable for an assessor to depend on a claimant’s own view of whether an assessment is needed. 

Third, in this case it was arguably the more unreasonable because the claimant had already asserted problems remembering things and with processing.  So why should the HCP depend on him to report adequately his mental, cognitive or intellectual function? “ 

She finds that the tribunal erred in failing to take issue with the HCP’s failure adequately to examine the claimant given the evidence suggesting the claimant’s mental, cognitive and intellectual functioning were not normal.

This included a failure to enquire into discrepancies between his tick-box answers and their prose explanations.

Also its failure to enquire into discrepancies between the questionnaire and what the claimant reportedly told the HCP

Judge Perez also finds the tribunal erred in proceeding with a paper hearing.

It did not specify why it considered it had “adequate information” to do so.

In addition, it did not  mention the claimant’s letter that said he would be unable to attend because he was unable to find his way to Hanley, not because he did not wish to attend.  She says that this was not an indication of a refusal to attend if a way could be found for him to do so.

I explained that I was waiting further help from my GP and other charities as I had mental health conditions left untreated due to an unresponsive GP, according to this, the DWP should have requested a mental health assessment.. also it states that asking somebody with mental health issues and cognitive issues is not reliable, and the fact that they the assessor went  Into this assessment knowing this but did not request further information even after I said that my doctor was not sympathetic to mental health issues and was struggling to get help.. instead, she reported that my mood was stable and I had no problem making eye contact.. I have complex ptsd anxiety depression and a whole host of other issues.. at the time my review letter came I had been bed ridden for six months due to my spinal injury and partial paralysis of my left leg.