Asking Medical Professional for clarification

Do tribunals take into account that our own medical professionals probably do not know the actual descriptors or points system of meeting WRAG or Support Group when they write a letter of support? For example, stopping, rests, commencement of pain and severe discomfort, reliably, repeatedly, majority of times.

del wrote: Do tribunals take into account that our own medical professionals probably do not know the actual descriptors or points system of meeting WRAG or Support Group when they write a letter of support? For example, stopping, rests, commencement of pain and severe discomfort, reliably, repeatedly, majority of times.

Hi d,

One would envisage that Tribunal panels would not expect an appellant's treating HCP, G.P. or Consultant to be fully conversant with the ESA regulations and qualifying criteria.

After all, there are some ATOS HCP's and DWP DM's that are not fully conversant with said regulations.

bro58

bro58 wrote:

del wrote: Do tribunals take into account that our own medical professionals probably do not know the actual descriptors or points system of meeting WRAG or Support Group when they write a letter of support? For example, stopping, rests, commencement of pain and severe discomfort, reliably, repeatedly, majority of times.

Hi d,

One would envisage that Tribunal panels would not expect an appellant's treating HCP, G.P. or Consultant to be fully conversant with the ESA regulations and qualifying criteria.

After all, there are some ATOS HCP's and DWP DM's that are not fully conversant with said regulations.

bro58

bro58 you cheered me up and I definitely need that at the moment.

del wrote:

bro58 wrote:

del wrote: Do tribunals take into account that our own medical professionals probably do not know the actual descriptors or points system of meeting WRAG or Support Group when they write a letter of support? For example, stopping, rests, commencement of pain and severe discomfort, reliably, repeatedly, majority of times.

Hi d,

One would envisage that Tribunal panels would not expect an appellant's treating HCP, G.P. or Consultant to be fully conversant with the ESA regulations and qualifying criteria.

After all, there are some ATOS HCP's and DWP DM's that are not fully conversant with said regulations.

bro58

bro58 you cheered me up and I definitely need that at the moment.

Glad to have been of service, d !!

There are some G.P.'s and Consultants that have a very good knowledge of the Regs, I have one Consultant who has a thorough understanding of the ESA qualifying criteria, and provided an excellent letter of support applying this knowledge.

Unfortunately, such HCP's are in the minority.

bro58

My doctor is very good and seems to understand ESA they wrote a lovely letter covering Reg 35 and I was moved into the Support Group at reconsideration

Mags

bro58 wrote:

del wrote:

bro58 wrote:

del wrote: Do tribunals take into account that our own medical professionals probably do not know the actual descriptors or points system of meeting WRAG or Support Group when they write a letter of support? For example, stopping, rests, commencement of pain and severe discomfort, reliably, repeatedly, majority of times.

Hi d,

One would envisage that Tribunal panels would not expect an appellant's treating HCP, G.P. or Consultant to be fully conversant with the ESA regulations and qualifying criteria.

After all, there are some ATOS HCP's and DWP DM's that are not fully conversant with said regulations.

bro58

bro58 you cheered me up and I definitely need that at the moment.

Glad to hav been of service, d !!

There are some G.P.'s and Consultants that have a very good knowledge of the Regs, I have one Consultant who has a thorough understanding of the ESA qualifying criteria, and provided an excellent letter of support applying this knowledge.

Unfortunately, such HCP's are in the minority.

bro58

This is where I think a lot of us fall into the trap of being assessed by DWP incorrectly. Our own medical professionals who have no idea of the Regs can in all innocence by writing a good report cause it to have the opposite effect for eligibility for ESA. What they write could be correct but it is the lack of the nitty gritty detail that causes problems with meeting the law of the ESA.
Also, the appeal system at the end of the day as far as I can see is not rabbiting on and justing you do have conditions and symptoms but the most important bit is how the functional limitations of those impact on your daily life and proving that is what meets the relevant descriptors and law of ESA regulations whether it be WRAG or Support Group.
So difficult for claimants to cope with because at the end of the day to most claimants the Tribunal is psychologically a Court of Law and that alone intimidates and scares the heck out of many of us.