simple one


Q

questionsforyou

If someone anonymously reports you alleging "malingering " for both
mental and physical ailments but without alleging the usual things
like working or some demanding recreational activity , instread
simply stating that the claimant had managed to fool the medical
profession by reading stuff up , would the DWP investigators
actually call for the file, go through it with a fine toothcomb and
interview under caution (despite only anonymous informants word to go
on) and where there is a mountain of clinical evidence of physical
and mental impairment over a long time I how it would be handled.
Anyone know. ?
 
Ad

Advertisements

Z

Zargon

If someone anonymously reports you alleging "malingering " for both
mental and physical ailments but without alleging the usual things
like working or some demanding recreational activity , instread
simply stating that the claimant had managed to fool the medical
profession by reading stuff up , would the DWP investigators
actually call for the file, go through it with a fine toothcomb and
interview under caution (despite only anonymous informants word to go
on) and where there is a mountain of clinical evidence of physical
and mental impairment over a long time I how it would be handled.
Anyone know. ?
Its possible I guess. However, medical evidence is the main
consideration in incapacity cases.
The Dr gives their professional opinion and that carries a lot of
weight in benefit law.

If any doubt arose its possible that the person would be called to a
medical review.
Going through the case "with a fine toothcomb" would not provide any
evidence one way or the other.
Interview under caution wouldn't really provide any answers either.

On balance I think it would be put into the "malicious" pile and some
easier to prove case selected instead.

Just an opinion.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Q

questionsforyou

Its possible I guess. However, medical evidence is the main
consideration in incapacity cases.
The Dr gives their professional opinion and that carries a lot of
weight in benefit law.

If any doubt arose its possible that the person would be called to a
medical review.
Going through the case "with a fine toothcomb" would not provide any
evidence one way or the other.
Interview under caution wouldn't really provide any answers either.

On balance I think it would be put into the "malicious" pile and some
easier to prove case selected instead.

Just an opinion.
thank you for the opinion. I tend to agree that the medical evidence
is crucial and they seek to rebut it when they have suspicions, .
Given the variability of many health conditions of day to day
performance , it seems that the investigations tend to center on
surveillance as a means to show the individuals abilities are at
variance with that evidence.. The many TV programmes about this show
how covert filming is undertaken on a series of occasions . Then the
unsuspecting suspect is interviewed and showed the evidence gathered
on a series of dates. Hence they are totally unable to depend on the
"you saw me on a good day" line. The headline grabber cases are
notable for their audacity
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top