Advocating a 100% Fresh Assessment in All but Name

“Isn’t it nice to think that tomorrow is a new day with no mistakes in it yet?”
― L.M. Montgomery

Here’s the problem. A force brainwashed SMP won’t say a medical examination has occurred without seeing the former officer stagger into the office with bulging* Lidl bag (other supermarkets are available) with papers sticking out of it. *Note: More than likely the physical carrying of such bag will be used as sly evidence of substantial change.

We don’t know if it had the words ‘all my medical records ever, since birth’ written in Magic Marker on the side of the bag. Anyway, a little later, the SMP says a mild bout of flu when 6 years old is the real cause of the missing limb and subsequent PTSD, and causation is revisited.

Later again, surprise is expressed that the SMP had been able to get through with his primitive bag of tricks. In this new-age we are continually exhorted by HR minions such as  Staffordshire’s Andrew Colley that it’s not the force that wants the medical records, it’s the SMP.  Always the SMP.  ‘Our hands are tied!’ says Colley, the doctor is a doctor, he can ask for whatever he likes.  Don’t shoot the messenger … nothing to do with the PPA (honest ‘guv).

We are told to be vigilant on disclosure of sensitive personal information, so why wasn’t the SMP told he can’t have what he’s not entitled to? Did nobody think it looked a bit suspicious?  That the question of what happened prior to the last decision is time-barred and irrelevant.  What maybe reasonable to a nice and pleasant doctor is not lawful in the world of the Regulations where nice and pleasant doctors are as rare as unicorn droppings.

We have the feeling we know the answer to that. Just think of the howl-round, the furore, if the SMP decided to say the person should not have an injury award in the first place or said the previous decision wrong. This would be a clear breach of Law Court of Appeal in Metropolitan Police Authority v Laws and the PMAB [2010] EWCA Civ 1099, in which it was held that the SMP was not entitled when conducting a review under regulation 37 to re-open clinical judgements as to causation or apportionment made in earlier decisions under the 2006 Regulations, and had merely to consider whether the degree of disablement had substantially altered.

But by demanding full medical records from birth, this is exactly where we are, right now. Pinned to our seats by perceived medical decision immunity, as the train enters the darkness of the tunnel of the Laws case law, next stop a zero percent band one.

Forces like Staffordshire are trying to bypass Laws and revisit causation by pointing the finger at Dr Vivian by proclaiming that it’s not them (the police pension authority, PPA) that is demanding full medical records, it’s Vivian – and Vivian is a doctor, and all doctors are nice and pleasant and wouldn’t breach the law.  The flaw in this is the SMP, as a delegated decision maker, is synonymous with the PPA.  They are not two separate entities … one is culpable for the other.  What the PPA can’t do, the SMP can’t do.

But the “let’s look at full medical records from birth” is when the SMP brings in other illnesses even when there are no said illness – such as age! (We aren’t joking here, this recently happened). And the reduction is formalised behind the mask of so-called expert medical opinion.

Where did this process of radicalisation start, and what has had done to counter it?  Our blogs shine a light and the narrative is clear:  the Regulations do not support the interpretation that is placed upon them by police forces.  They get it wrong and that’s why they continually lose in judicial reviews.

The National Well Being & Attendance Forum sets its people apart from the rest and, in all too many cases, this apartness leads to a hatred of the function of the Regulations:  to provide those injured on duty with an injury award.

NWEF prefers to think the Regulations as a means to stop those injured on duty from getting an injury award.

The NWEF September 1st 2017 minutes are a case in point.  The minions in attendance obviously, quite rightly, have the willies about consent because they get the consent issue so wrong it hurts.  They talked about being GDPR ready (the GPDR is the new General Data Protection Regulations and is the new legal framework for data protection coming into force in 2018) but just prior they chat about the SMP can have anything the SMP asks for. NWEF says:

The general view was that it is the SMPs process so it is up to the SMP to direct what information or evidence they require,

We’ve read the GPDR and having ‘everything’ ever, because ‘everything’ is asked for, and not giving ‘everything’ will be seen as non-compliance and dealt with by punitive action, doesn’t seem to fit.  Actually enough faux understatement, let’s not beat around the bush; it’s unlawful.

And the questionnaire!  Oh my, the questionnaire.  Even though a 2017 consent order against Merseyside touched on this as well as full medical records from birth, NWEF still thinks a questionnaire is a legitimate means to fulfil the comparison test.

3) Refusing to complete a questionnaire for the purposes of Reg 37(1)
It was felt the exchange of information between the pensioner and SMP is essential to identify substantial change.
There was comment that the case of Laws set the principle that a case cannot be referred for degree of disablement to be reviewed without evidence of substantial change; the questionnaire assists with the gathering of evidence.

Let us quickly mention that the purpose of a review is never to fish for change to find evidence for a reduction and that a questionnaire is an invented device and is outside the statutory framework.  But let us roll with the juxtaposition of the Laws judgement and whether the questionnaire assists with the gathering of evidence.

Surely for the questionnaire to be a tool in the way NWEF suggests, there will have to be two questionnaires.  One completed on a previous date, and one completed in the present day. And then the answer to the questions could be balanced against the previous answer.

But no … there is only ever one questionnaire.  So tying to mask this unlawful device as permitted by Laws is just probably the worse thing ever written about anything to do with the Regulations. Ever.

Feel free to read the rest of the September minutes.  Have your tutting hat on.  You will be doing a lot of tutting!

NWEF September 1 2017

 

Advocating a 100% Fresh Assessment in All but Name
Tagged on:     

8 thoughts on “Advocating a 100% Fresh Assessment in All but Name

  • 2017-11-07 at 4:26 pm
    Permalink

    Ah the old NWEF , these are the same guys who don’t want the term PTSD being used they prefer the term ” mental health well being issues”. I mean lets not call it cancer rather than use the term “a bit of a growth”. I have suffered from complex PTSD for a long time now and Im sorry to say its a very real and dangerous illness and in my case caused by police work and being treated like a criminal by the Met.
    The clowns at NWEF seam to think themselves above the law a lot like many MPs and criminal groups.
    These clowns are being paid some serious money By ACPOO with the sole aim of reducing IOD awards by any means.

  • 2017-11-07 at 1:15 pm
    Permalink

    SAME OLD SAME OLD SAME OLD SAME OLD SAME OLD STORY!

    PERHAPS, the method of thinking is, that if we just continually go down the SAME OLD route time after time, after time and after time again, someone will, tick the wrong box in frustration, and hey presto, they, the POWLEECE sorry the SMP will have his man or woman, and can paint the town red!
    Dear old Dr Vivian, dressed up as Clint Eastwood, having painted the entire town red, with a sign saying ” Welcome to Hell ”

    I mean what is wrong with this lot?

    Are they really as stupid as they depict, because if they are god help the public!

    The only goddamm reason an SMP wants medical records going back to birth, is to forensically disect them to establish whether or not, there is anything, any snippet of information, which just might, in the loosest of contexts establish a different cause for an illness or injury, other than the recorded cause for the IODA.

    Of course, they have already seen our full medical records when we joined the Police Service, so they must have established in the first instance that any recorded complaint, would not, in their professional opinion, cause the applicant any undue duress or injury, in the course of his or her role as a Police Constable.

    Certainly not leading to lengthy periods of absence or sickness. This would be negligent.

    Of course there is a hatred of the Regulations! A huge Hatred!

    Mountstevens ( I find it very difficult not to refer to her as Mountf##kwit) in her letter three and a half years ago to the chap who now has porn on his computer, thought it was going to be such a simple process of repealing the Regs, having them redrafted, so it suited them, and not the unfortunate, who have had their lives cut short, by drumming them out of the Police, whether they wanted to go or not.

    Fortunately for those of us in the latter, repealing acts of Parliament is not that easy.

    So now, the SMP, this Nicholas Wirtz inspired comic hero, with Quasi Judicial Authority ( Not ) can ask for whatever he wants ( no he can’t ) in the search for the ” Evidence ” he needs, to do what exactly? Evidence if you ask me, sounds like something that is required to put a person before a court.

    But no, it is needed in order to attempt to stitch the likes of you and I up like a kipper!

    It won’t be, to determine whether or not there has been a substantial change in the degree of applicable disablement as per Regulation 37 PIBR.

    The best person to determine whether or not there has been a substantial change, or whether the degree of disablement remains the same, remains the IOD pensioner, ably supported by evidence from the relevant retained medical consultant reports that will be within everyone’s medical notes. But, alas I forgot, they lie!

    Hmm, Pot and Kettle methinks.

    An SMP, has dual responsibility under the GMC guidleines, to both his ” Patient ” and his ” Employer “, but SMP’s are Doctors with experience of Occupational Health, or in Avon and Somersets case, a failed Gynaecologist, with such experience.

    It is akin to asking, a Community Service Officer, to defuse a roadside Improvised Explosive Device, while being shot at straight from training school.

    Which brings me to the Questionnaire, and the evidence that they are seeking.

    There is no doubt that the Q’aire is a loaded weapon, the questions contained within them, biased, all of which are designed to result in a lowering of the degree of disablement banding, if answered!

    I note that NWEF have actioned Northumbria to continue their ” negotiations ” with the HO, regarding the withdrawn guidance. Best of luck on that!

    Hope Wirtz and his co horts, Broome and Lesley Anne, stray across the line and inadvertently pat the wrong person on the knee!

  • 2017-11-06 at 5:59 pm
    Permalink

    “The general view was that it is the SMP’s process” – And there was me thinking that it was the PPA (aka the Chief Constable) who had overall responsibility for the conduct of reviews and to ensure that they are carried out in accordance with the regulations!
    Is this yet another myth that NWEF are trying to introduce?

  • 2017-11-05 at 8:40 pm
    Permalink

    The questionnaires are like a one way street.

    They have one purpose.

    They are unfairly designed and drafted.

    They operate with the goal to be to reduce the financial outlay, that in real terms means taking away from someone what they are entitled to.

    This is someone’s life, you do not treat heroes like this. These people are already broken. You should be offering further help.

    You at NAMF are disgusting. A plague on you.

  • 2017-11-05 at 5:27 pm
    Permalink

    A police officer has the benefit of being able to arrest and prosecute liars, fraudsters, cheats, plotters and schemers involved in committing unlawful practices, that he/she may come across whilst on duty. Then the most unbelievable event occurs. He/She is injured on duty and no longer able to be a police officer and in a lot of cases no longer able to work in any occupation ever again. They are retired on an Injured On Duty pension.

    The hardest part of being an IOD pensioner is discovering just how many cheats and liars and plotters and schemers we now become victims of because it is now considered that no force can afford to maintain our pensions and are now spending their time and a LOT of money trying to nibble away at and reduce our pensions by any means possible. They even create organisations to do more plotting and scheming and trying to unite all forces into doing the same things.

    There are forces who follow all the legal rules and regulations written for the IOD pension. Then there are a few that don’t, who try to misinterpret those rules and regulations to suit themselves and get the IOD pensioner targets on as low a pension as they can. The guilty parties? HR departments, SMP’s, Legal departments and of course the Chief Constables who are, supposedly, the ones held responsible for IOD pensions handling. Either they don’t know, don’t believe or don’t care what is happening under their watch!

    Let them watch out now! Those IOD pensioners have now formed an organisation of their own who are constantly uncovering the cheating and deceptive activities being used and stopping them! The IODPA, and their terrific legal advisors, are now showing them up and getting things put right. They have won every battle so far!! The erring forces are spending a lot more money in legal fees than they have unlawfully tried to save and have paid penalties too!

    Its been so hard to discover that being an IOD pensioner we will come across such as this.

  • 2017-11-04 at 10:31 pm
    Permalink

    I often hear uttered, the untruth that most IOD’s obtained their award by nefarious means. That people in neck collars are often seen gardening, or some other activity.
    The truth is that all IOD’s have gone through a rigorous process to be awarded the pension. Many, like me, would gladly give up our IOD Pensions, if we could be returned to the health we had before the injury. Some do recover and get properly reassessed, but most are permanently disabled with conditions that will not improve.
    SMP’s treat us retired loyal IOD officers, worse than many a serious criminal might expect to be treated and they use many underhand methods to try to trick us into declaring something we are obviously not, that is fully fit, or greatly improved.
    Most of us have learned to live with our condition, managing it and getting on with our lives. I’d love to go gliding, skiing, or even sky diving, but I cannot & I wouldn’t even consider it, although I might watch others from the sidelines.
    We all recognise the right to review, but if only Chief Constables would ask us the straight question “Has there been any substantial change”? All of us are likely to respond with 99.9% giving a honest reply, but no, they & their SMP’s carry on via unlawful processes, cause tremendous unnecessary stress, all without acheiving what they want & with huge costs to the public purse.

  • 2017-11-04 at 3:51 pm
    Permalink

    NAWF – one word ‘clueless’

  • 2017-11-04 at 11:21 am
    Permalink

    *Note: More than likely the physical carrying of such bag will be used as sly evidence of substantial change.

    SMP’s/DWP/Atos have a history of that type ‘review’ and I noticed in my last police pension review the Doctor used very similar ‘tactics’, fortunately having been under the DWP for over a decade I could see exactly what he was playing at, but it still didn’t stop him from writing a report that bore very little resemblance to what was actually said.

    It does seem though that these SMP’s are transferring their ‘training’ from the benefits system to police pension reviews and enter into them with a mindset that we are ‘scroungers’ and it is for them to find ways of ‘catching us out’, fortunately we have IODPA because if we didn’t , they’d happily ride roughshod over us as they have a great many on benefits.

    Out of interest, has anyone ever (or know of anyone) actually submitted a questionnaire and as a result been told by their authority that as a result of said questionnaire, there is no need to physically review you ?

Comments are closed.