What's the defintion of work-related activity?

Gordon

Thank you for the reference. Using that search engine, I found one recent judgement (25 July 2013) where the judge appeared to express my problems on this issue:

While all matters are at large before the new tribunal, it will need to consider not only the activities put in issue, but also regulation 35(2)(b) ESA Regulations. However, the Secretary of State will need to produce for the benefit of the next tribunal an account of the type of work related activity that the claimant would be required to engage in. Without this the tribunal will not be [able to] answer the question whether not being found to have limited capability for work related activity would be a substantial risk to the claimant’s mental or physical health.

(Judge A Ramsey [2013] UKUT 0359 (AAC) para 17 from www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j3917/CE%200261%202013-00.doc or using case details via the search page at www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/default.aspx )

It would be interesting to know whether or not the DWP has provided, or is intending to provide, said account of “the type of work related activity that the claimant would be required to engage in.”

I assume that the new tribunal will not yet have taken place and may not even have been scheduled. Is there – or will there be – any way of finding out if the DWP did provide the account which Judge Ramsey thought necessary, or what that account said? (Or will there be in the future any evidence that they had provided such an account?)

Can the DWP ignore that part of the judgement?

Stupid question – of course they can ignore/ have ignored the law. The question should be – could someone else sensibly use Judge Ramsey’s ruling to try and force details from the DWP in another case? Or at the least use that ruling to show that without the DWP providing details of WRA, then the tribunal is not going to be able to decide on a Reg 35 issue.

Having said all of this, I do take bro58's point that the GP's letter with the E50 (supposing one has a cooperative GP) would have to be fairly general. I suppose I'm assuming (from past experience and given current DWP/Atos form) that Reg 35 eligibility might have to be argued before a tribunal and that any submission at the earlier stage needs to bear that point in mind.

Gordon

So the DWP can declare that almost anyone no one is disqualified from WRA by the Reg 35 route - well, they do call it exceptional circumstances.

Had you seen this from the blog of Greg Woods (Atos whistleblower), though I assume this refers only to mental health claims:

Although this aspect of the training began to change in early 2013 or so, for 18 months before that trainees had been given the strong impression that 'Risk' meant 'risk of self-harm'. Again, the ESA Handbook says differently, but another bogus rule of thumb had been put forward during training at a time when trainees were being bombarded with new facts, so they eagerly latched on to this false aide memoire.

How can I be so sure? Because the risk Descriptor is important for mental health and I was a mentor in this area at Atos. I had many calls from nurses and doctors who wrongly believed that the concept of risk only applied to self-harm and suicide, not, for example, a risk of relapse if the claimant were found fit for work.

Why is this important? Some common disabling mental illnesses, schizophrenia in particular, are recognised as potentially being worsened by stress, particularly interpersonal stress, such as you might find in a new and unfamiliar workplace.

( WCA Work Test: Risk )

Sounds like the mass re-training at Atos is much overdue.