David Lock QC: Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions: Is there any duty to provide medical records?

All copyright owned by David Lock QC

David Lock QC

David Lock QC

Barrister and QC at Landmark Chambers

Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions: Is there any duty to provide medical records?

There is a considerable debate at the moment about how far Chief Constables, acting as the Police Pensions Authority, (“the PPA”) and the Selected

Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions_ Is there any duty to provide medical records_ LinkedIn
David Lock QC: Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions: Is there any duty to provide medical records?
Tagged on:

27 thoughts on “David Lock QC: Medical reviews of former police officers on injury pensions: Is there any duty to provide medical records?

  • 2017-11-09 at 10:29 pm
    Permalink

    Clear and to the point, very informative both for injured officers and those involved administering police injury pensions. One day hopefully the message will get through and chief constables will employ doctors and HR personnel who will uphold the law rather than blatantly breaking it in an attempt to save money which legally should be given to those injured serving the public.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-06 at 6:55 pm
    Permalink

    David’s article clarifies the legal position with regard to medical records and the legal rights of SMP’s, PPA employees and individual officers. He has articulated the law in relation to this in a comprehensive and accessible way. It is a pity that the HR clerks and NWEF attendees don’t seem to get it!
    Considering we are dealing with the ‘police’ who are supposed to be masters of law and order, why is it those who ‘lead’ in the police service appear to be unable to understand and execute the law?
    The inverted pyramid approach within organisations prevails me thinks. Professionals at the bottom supporting the myriad of administration employees in the ever expanding top slab where the sarcophagus resides: full of forms to fill in!
    The police federation and NARPO would do well to seek professional advice before ‘assisting’ in compiling medical questionnaires……




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 3:34 pm
    Permalink

    David Lock QC is brilliant ,I had the pleasure to see him in action last Tuesday 31.10.2017 ands he is GOOD. His advice re records is without doubt the final word in this long running saga it can not be faulted re the law and common sense. He is also a very pleasant man to talk with, we are now totally clear on where we stand re medical records. Thank You David.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    All HR managers and SMPs please take note. IODPA has provided excellent advice which your own legal advisors would not dare give you.

    There is no ‘duty to review’. It is not lawful to hold a review unless there is some good reason to believe there may well have been a substantial alteration in degree of disablement.

    If you ask a pensioner if there has been a substantial alteration, and the reply is ‘No’ then why don’t you take this on trust? If a pensioner provides a letter from their GP confirming there has been no substantial alteration, then that should be the end of the matter.

    Think of the money and aggravation you will save.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 10:30 am
    Permalink

    Mr Lock QC is the most eminent Barrister in the area of injury awards. He has consistently beat Police forces who just seem content on paying Barristers and SMPs regardless wasting tax payers money.

    Maybe we should seek to identify if corruption is afoot? Are backhanders being paid as some SMPs have become millionaires, it’s a closed shop and despite constantly being ruled to have acted unlawfully at High Court, they ply their trade.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 9:41 am
    Permalink

    Thank you so much David Lock for taking the time to explain this in a way that makes it so easy to understand. Please, please, please can we get this message out to all of the PPA’s, the SMP’s, NARPO and the federation because even they will be able to understand it now!
    Thank you IODPA.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 7:26 am
    Permalink

    Essential reading for all Chief Constables who are either considering or currently in the process of mass reviewing those in receipt of an injury on duty award. Perhaps the Home Office should also take note and include this article in their guidance to all chief officers.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 7:06 am
    Permalink

    All Chief Constables and HR Managers as well as PPA should get a copy of this or at least be informed that Injured on Duty Officers should not be seen as an easy target for their budget cuts. Why is it that they think because officers have been injured we are easy targets? Officers Injured on Duty and subsequently retired are shown little to no respect by some Chief Constables and its time the public were made aware of this. Great work by all those at IODPA and David Lock QC.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 6:19 am
    Permalink

    Thank You David Lock and Ron and Mark and all at IODPA for explaining what is and is not required when under review. It is a shame that the various police forces up and down the country don’t listen to this instead of listening to there mislead advice. This will do a great deal to support the many IOD officers that have suffered under the bullying tactics of some police forces conducting unlawful reviews. THANK YOU.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-05 at 12:32 am
    Permalink

    Thank you for a very informative post which has certainly set things clear in my mind fur a very stressful process !




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 11:25 pm
    Permalink

    An eye opener to the HR departments that had a differing opinion this makes this issue clear and concise and is authored by an eminent QC at the top of his game.
    I hope that this goes some way to putting IODS minds at rest as I know it has mine.
    Thank you IODPA and David Lock and all who are fighting the wrongs of years of bullying and oppression from forces.
    These people who support IODS are true giants amongst men.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:35 pm
    Permalink

    How fortunate that the law is so unambiguous in respect of Police injury benefit regulations. David Lock QC is able to explain in words that we can all understand how the issues affect us. Why is it that PPA’s and SNP’s find it so difficult to interpret the regulations correctly. The only reason I can see is that the PPA’s see IOD’s as a financial burden and the SNP’s see us as cash cows at £750 a pop. How much more money are individual PPA’s going to waste before they realise that the Regs were written to support IOD’s and not to punish us. Come on Gareth it’s time to follow the lead of your former force and confine these unlawful reviews to history.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:25 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for this, it puts my mind at rest as I’m sure it does all IOD ‘s……we can face it when we are asked knowing that what they want and what they get are two different things and we are on the right side of the law by Saying No ….




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:25 pm
    Permalink

    IODPA, David Lock, Ron Thompson, Mark Lake.

    Just thank you.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:23 pm
    Permalink

    Dr Vivian, Dr Johnson, Dr Broome, Dr Nightingale, are you all reading this and taking note?

    For all you doctors who keep thinking that your paymasters are following the Regulations correctly, this is a warning to you all.

    Start following the law, start listening to the most respected QC in this arena.

    For goodness sake, listen to your inner voice, rather than be led by the money god. And remember why you became doctors in the first place.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:11 pm
    Permalink

    An excellent report which makes it clear to all in relation to medical records. As mentioned before I will be printing off a copy and sticking to it! Thank you David Lock QC and also to IODPA.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:06 pm
    Permalink

    Excellent and definitive explanation. Many thanks




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:05 pm
    Permalink

    It’s really comforting to have, at long last, our legal position explained to us from an eminent Barrister who has acted for IOD pensioners for years!

    The official side will no longer ride roughshod over vulnerable people!

    Perhaps, the C.Cs will start to adhere to the regulations which are written into law. Is that too much to ask?




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:01 pm
    Permalink

    For months I have been fearful of my force and their threats to reduce my pension if I did not hand over my medical notes to them. I have had months of sleepless nights as ‘they’ have been relentless in their pursuit of my GP notes.

    I am so relieved I held my ground and refused.

    Thank you Mr Lock for your informed legal advice. You will never know what your words mean to me. And I suspect to others in my position.

    I am grateful to Mr Lock, Mr Thompson and Mr Lake for their support to all injured Pensioners. They are truly the good guys.

    And my total thanks to IODPA. You are also the good guys. Keep fighting the good fight.

    We all owe so much to just a few people.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 7:55 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you David for this. Thanks also to Ron and all at IODPA for what you are all doing.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 6:07 pm
    Permalink

    This certainly clears up any ambiguity about medical records and questionnaires as far as I am concerned. Thanks David Lock for throwing your hat into the ring and clearing this up for all IOD’s. Took a load off of my mind. Well done to IODPA as well.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 4:40 pm
    Permalink

    Hi IODPA and thanks, I was thinking more along the lines regarding the answers to the medical questions rather than the financial aspect, but I guess they both go together ?

    I don’t know about anyone else but that PEAM’s thing and how it can potentially affect your banding is quite confusing to me, any chance we could have an article about it in the future (time allowing ) ?

    Thanks




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 12:44 pm
    Permalink

    A copy of this should be sent to Mr. Wirz self styled leader and all seeing all believing of NEWF and his followers to show what the actual wording of the law and what it means to us IOD’s is.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 12:19 pm
    Permalink

    There will be a copy of this report by David Lock QC included in any documents I will have with me if I ever get reviewed again! What a great shield to protect ourselves with when asked for medical records from birth! Thank you David Lock and thank you IODPA.




    0



    0
  • 2017-11-04 at 11:26 am
    Permalink

    I’ve asked the question on another thread but out of interest, has anyone ever provided a questionnaire and as a result been told they DO NOT have to attend for a medical (as per b) ?




    0



    0
    • 2017-11-04 at 11:52 am
      Permalink

      Merseyside did this Harry for those who didn’t disclose a salary. They reviewed those that did, ignoring whether the salary in itself was indicative of any alteration of degree of disablement




      0



      0
  • 2017-11-04 at 10:51 am
    Permalink

    Brilliant and essential for all IODP’s to be aware of, as the Police don’t seem to be.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.