Approx. 20% of claimants are disallowed (i.e. 20% of the total claims looked
at rather than just 20% of those examined AFAIK) and just under 50% of those
disallowed who appeal are successful . Look in Hansard.

>>When the all work test was introduced a considerable proportion of
the claimants were found to score zero - IE to have no objectively
measurable incapacity<<
To score zero does not mean there is no measurable incapacity, it means
there is no significant incapacity as regards All Work.

>>The patient says that there was more, which he didn't fill in on the
original questionnaire;  that the doctor is wrong in thinking he was
capable of certain activities; that at the time he was depressed;
alcoholic or otherwise mentally ill, but had not said anything about
that and was therefore not examined with respect to that...<<

It is the examining doctor's job to enquire of all the medical problems not
exclusively those on the IB50. This particularly important if there has been
some delay between IB50 and examination.

>>The doctor doesn't have to believe everything the patient says, but
should usually record what they say in the first part of the
examination.<<

Absolutely!  The whole point of the test is that the examining doctor has to
consider history, examination, observed behaviour,  knowledge of the
relevant medical conditions, and award the AWT descriptors on the basis of
the balance of probabilities.

>>No, actually it is an examination.
The history, AIUI, is given by the patient in the IB50.
Each section of it, which corresponds to each section of the all
work test, offers the choices of declaring a problem, of varying
levels of severity, or of ticking "I do not have a problem doing
this"

There is a check, an opportunity for the patient to add in anything
they didn't put down, but the test is primarily an examination, and
there is little likelihood of the examining doctor examining
something which the patient has made a statutory declaration that
they do not have a problem with.<<

There are 2 blank text boxes for the examining doctor to record history and
typical day findings (a bit less than A4 each).
If the claimant has a condition that clearly affects descriptors which the
claimant has not addressed in the IB50 then these should be completed.
Otherwise the examining doctor is not giving the adjudication officer a fair
representation of the claimant's disability.

A point to bear in mind is that appeal hearings run by ITS are very much
legal based as opposed to medical based (the chairperson will tend to be a
legal professional). This is presumed to be because the decision is made by
a non-medical adjudication officer. It is not like the Medical Appeal
Tribunals for Industrial Injuries where the claimant is actually
re-examined. While there is a medical assessor at the appeal they are not
allowed to examine the claimant and are not allowed to be asked questions
directly about the claimant. Their function is supposed to be to explain
medical details or conditions. This may explain the differences in scoring
to some extent.

[log in to unmask]
David M.J. Mills




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%