Medical Opinions

Hello all,

This may sound a silly question but are there any presidents that say a specialist Consultants' view, or another specialist in the particular field, should be accepted by a Tribunal as carrying more weight than an EMP?

I ask because in my case the Tribunal suggested that the view of the Consultant agreed 'materially' with the view of an EMP. The EMP examination took place 2 years earlier than that of the Consultant and plainly, there was no agreement in what they reported.

Also, a specialist Physiotherapist reported major degeneration in mobility to the findings of the same EMP, 1 year after the EMP report, but that report was not even referred to in the SOR.

So, I am wondering, is there a statute or whatever it may be called, to say that the evidence of Specialists in the particular field should be considered less important than those of and EMP, the same as those of an EMP, or should carry more weight due to their specialist knowledge?

Sorry its so long, would be interested to hear from anyone who knows.

Thanks

Bill

There is no protocol to say that any healthcare professionals report should take precedence, whether it be those involved with your care or that of an EMP.

Insofar as appeal tribunals are concerned, they are free to choose what (medical) evidence to accept, as long as they give their reasons for rejecting the other sources of (medical) evidence which are presented to them. Unfortunately, many appeal tribunals do not give reasons and instead use stock formulaic statements to justify their decision. If this situation occurs, there is potentially an error of law and reference to the Upper Tribunal may be an option?

Hello Crazydiamond,

Thanks for that info. I know you cant give advice on particular cases and thats not what I want anyway, just an opinion, if possible please.

An EMP found 'slight impairment' in upper limbs and no neurological changes. One year later, a Physiotherapist Specialist found my upper limbs to have 'very decreased movement' and 'flexion reduced to a quarter' and 'abduction down to 10%' and 'in neurological testing his power was very reduced'. There is more but I want to keep this short as possible.

The upshot was that they referred me to a Consultant at another hospital who found that in his view I would suffer 'significant pain' and it would 'effect his mobility'.

The Tribunal found that the Consultant 'materially agreed with the EMP report' and they ignored the findings of the Specialist Physiotherapist totally and made no mention of it at all in the SOR.

Grounds for an Appeal to the Upper Tribunal maybe?

Bill

There is it seems potential grounds for an appeal to the UT, but please be aware of the time limits for appealing.

If you decide to appeal to the UT, you should seek advice from a CAB or welfare rights office to help you with your appeal, as there may be other errors of law in the tribunal's decision which these organisations should be able to identify for you.

Hello Crazydiamond,

Thank you very much for your opinion and indeed the advice.

Regards

Bill