Contrasting Medical Reports

Are you sure the report, the one the selected medical practitioner disclosed to you about your  permanent disablement and degree of disability, is the only report in existence?

Could there be another report out in the wild? Did the force actually receive the ‘true’ copy?

Maybe this second report was never intended for your eyes to see.   This hidden report is how the Human Resources director dreamt it to be.    Flawed, corrupted, damaged by the fevers, intoxication, hate and unforgiveness of it’s SMP author.  The report you never get to read tells the story of what the doctor truly thinks about your medical condition – how little your earning capacity is affected; how he doubts your symptoms.

Such deviousness has a precedent.  In July 2016 The High Court granted insurance company LV= permission to bring committal proceedings against solicitors from a defunct law firm after two contrasting medical reports emerged in a road traffic case they were handling.

Her Honour Judge Karen Walden-Smith, sitting as a High Court judge,described the differences between the two reports – one served on the insurer and the other included in the trial bundle – as “stark”.

  1. The contrast between the two reports is stark. In the report disclosed with the claim, Mr Iqbal had suffered whiplash injuries to the neck and to the wrist, with a 6-8 month recovery period; whereas the report included in the bundle sets out that Mr Iqbal had mild pain and stiffness on the day of the accident but the symptoms, due to a whiplash injury, resolved 1 week from the date of the accident. The diagnosis of a whiplash injury to the wrist does not even make sense.

How does this relate to Police Injury Awards you may well ask?

These minutes from a Thames Valley Federation meeting suggest not only does this practice happen to retired police officers, but a senior HR manager recently resigned because his involvement in this intentionally and consciously performed misdeed was found out.

On page four there’s this quote:

It remains challenging to secure IHR’s as officers are increasingly asked to explore alternative treatment options. It has come to light that in some cases and at the instruction of the force legal team, that some officers seeking IHR but who have active or potential legal claims against the force, are having detailed capability reports prepared by the SMP, withheld. The force through the CHSS* have indicated that this practice has only been adopted in the last half a dozen cases. The CHSS has provided the full reports upon written request by officers. Haven Solicitors are coordinating the investigation into this practice and JW has made PFEW aware of this practice through the National General Secretary and Martyn Mordecai. Chris Sharp has resigned his position as CHSS, in part on the back of this nonregulatory practice. He will leave us in October.

[*Head of Corporate Health & Support Services]

So just like the contrasting medical reports in the 2016 LV= case,  Chris Sharp the Head of Corporate Health and Pensions Manager at Thames Valley police seemingly commissioned and then withheld capability reports, resplendent in greater sensitive medical detail than the ‘other’ report, from the former officers.  This was performed with the blessing of the force’s legal services department.

And he has resigned as a consequence.

If this is true then the SMP and Thames Valley may have fallen foul of countless pieces of legislation from the Data Protection act to the Access to Medical Reports Act.

In the LV= court case Counsel was perturbed by the existence of two reports.  Counsel was clearly concerned that there was a deliberate alteration of the report to put forward a stronger case for damages.

In The Police Injury Benefit Regulations the qualified medical authority is asked to provide ‘A’ report.  Not two.  Not a ‘certificate’  A Report.  Singular.

Is it the case that Thames Valley has been using the existence of two reports to ‘put forward’ (read bias) the case to reduce the award banding?  And by not disclosing the report benefiting by handicapping any future appeal?

No, surely not…  it surely can’t be that the administration of injury awards is that rife with corruption!  (ahem)


Contrasting Medical Reports
Tagged on:     

7 thoughts on “Contrasting Medical Reports

  • 2016-10-21 at 9:16 pm

    I wouldn’t trust them to reveal both reports with my Force. I cannot be certain that the SMP’s have only produced one report. In addition, their telephone conversations are not recorded. It is high time that this corruption is exposed and those responsible are held accountable.

    Get these people on the witness stand and see if they are prepared to commit perjury.

  • 2016-10-21 at 5:38 pm

    I found out they had done two reports after submitting a SAR. They are truly unbelievable!

  • 2016-10-21 at 12:51 pm

    So does this mean we should apply to the force and request any information they hold? It beggars belief at how far they will go. The FMO on reviewing me approx 6 years ago downgraded me and effectively cut my medical entitlement by 60%.

  • 2016-10-21 at 12:25 pm

    A quick update before I comment on the current post.
    I have this week gained the same qualification as Peter Owens from Merseyside. They are retired police officer who has an IOD award. Apparently these qualifications allow me to reduce awards of fellow IODs when they return a questionnaire detailing there employment situation.
    I am now looking for a force to take me on in the post of Medical retirement officer. Wish me luck everyone, I feel powerful, if not a little corupt as well.
    Anyway to the current post. Two reports this is easy to overcome. Don’t let them have access to the report they send you then they can’t produce or use a second report.
    I think of the money wasted writing two reports? What will they think of next two visits to different SMPs who then collude with each other to find out which one was the best at doing your legs.
    My question which I keep asking is, why do they hate us so much?
    The amount of money they waste trying their hardest to reduce us might as well be spent on something that makes a difference to patrol officers.
    Incidently anyone who knows serving officers must let them know what is going on with IODs because they are the future IODs unfortunately the nature of the job is that IODs will keep increasing.

  • 2016-10-21 at 11:28 am

    Unbelievable. How much more corruption do we have to put up with? I am totally disgusted that forces are deliberately flouting the law and Regulations.
    Who would ever allow themselves to go before any of these corrupt forces for a review? You have a FMA in Avon and Somerset being vile about the very people he should be caring for, a TVP HR manager now quitting, two reports being submitted without the knowledge of the IOD.
    Totally scandalous.

  • 2016-10-21 at 11:04 am

    WTF! Just when you think you have heard it all, those devious bastards throw in yet another example of their determination to ignore the law.

    Well done to Sharp for resigning – if he had any choice about it. I bet he was pushed out the door and made to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Was he paid to keep quiet?

    Now what about the quack who actually colluded in this, and wrote the two reports? Why has he not also resigned? Can we please see the terms of his contract with TVP and what it might say about termination in the event of unlaful actions?

Comments are closed.