ESA - Won my appeal but was the Doctor negligent?

Hello

Thanks to the information on this site I was able to submit what I thought was a good appeal against the original ESA decision.

The decision has been overturned and I was awarded an additional 9 points.

Couple of questions though.

Will the Doctor who carried out my original medical still be paid (after all they have provided incorrect evidence)

Does this mean they are incompetent and shouldn't be hired to do the job? If yes, is there any point referring the matter to the BMA?

Hi Fruity,

Congratulations on your successful appeal.

I'm afraid the doctor and the company who employ him will be paid. At least 40% of appeals are succesful but it doesn't have any effect on payment to doctors.

You would need to look at the grounds on which the BMA will consider complaints to decide if it is worthwhile in your case.

Good luck,

Steve

I wouldn't bother with the BMA as they are quite sympathetic to the Benfits doctors for reasons I can not say on this forum. I would focus on the GMC for complaints,as the doctors have to follow their guidelines and procedures which can be found in detail on their site..for quick reference a response from GMC and bits of their procedures are posted in the other section under "examination reports" .. but even with the GMC don't hold your breath..

I've made 2 reports to the GMC, about a doctor, for a grossly inaccurate medical.
They have replied that making 22 factual errors in a half hour medical is not evidence of incompetence, unless it is intentional! (Of course, we know that there is considerable evidence that the 'errors' in medicals could be regarded as intentional.)

I would be inclined to write back and ask the GMC how many factual errors they would consider to be incompetence for a doctor to carry out in a half hour medical.

borkwen wrote:

I've made 2 reports to the GMC, about a doctor, for a grossly inaccurate medical.
They have replied that making 22 factual errors in a half hour medical is not evidence of incompetence, unless it is intentional! (Of course, we know that there is considerable evidence that the 'errors' in medicals could be regarded as intentional.)

I would be inclined to write back and say how can they be certain it was not intentional, as if they cannot prove it was, they also cannot prove it wasn't.

I would also question why Atos HCP are allowed to disregard consultants evidence (don't know whether this applies in your case), surely this is undermining the credibility of the claimants care from GP or hospital.
Surely GMC and it's members cannot ignore this fact.