Snippet #3 – Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

Before a Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’) may revise an injury pension during a ‘reassessment of injury pension‘ under regulation 37(1), they shall refer the question of ‘the degree of the person’s disablement‘ to a duly qualified medical practitioner, as confirmed in regulation  30(2)(d) –

30.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the question whether a person is entitled to any, and if so what, awards under these Regulations shall be determined in the first instance by the police authority.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), where the police authority are considering whether a person is permanently disabled, they shall refer for decision to a duly qualified medical practitioner selected by them the following questions—

(d) the degree of the person’s disablement; and, if they are considering whether to revise an injury pension, shall so refer question (d) above.


What this means is, that whilst any paid employment the pensioner is performing may be considered by the Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) as an indication to their current level of disability, it does not allow non medical staff, regardless of their rank or role to recalculate a new level of disability based on their income, and therefore a new band.



Snippet #3 – Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

2 thoughts on “Snippet #3 – Referral to duly qualified medical practitioner

  • 2020-06-17 at 11:10 pm

    In respect of so-called ‘reviews’ of injury pensions:

    Smoke and mirrors.

    It has been the (sharp) practice of some forces to send out a request, often in the form of a questionnaire, for injury on duty pensioners to provide a range of personal information in advance of the review. Often this is explained as being to assist the process, and the pensioner is led to believe the information is essential to the SMP’s task..

    Often this will be presented in a way which makes it look as though the pensioner is required, in law, to provide the information.

    Another example of low cunning is to request consent for the force to contact your GP, the tax office, and the benefits office for details of your health and finances.

    Then comes the big hole in the smoke and mirrors. The sender of the questionnaire provides a nice space for the pension to sign their consent for use of all this sensitive personal data. No name or title is given as to who exactly will be processing the data. Think about this for a moment. If the force is asking for your consent, then isn’t this an acknowledgement that they do not have any lawful right to process your medical and financial information?

    If certain information would be helpful in the SMP’s task of making a decision, then the SMP, and only the SMP – not someone in HR or Occupational Health on the SMP’s behalf – should ask the pensioner for it. And only the SMP should see it.

    As to exactly what information the SMP might be lawfully entitled to, if any – well, that is something which is going to be determined in the courts.

    The bottom line is this. If you are called for a ‘review’ then do not trustingly hand over any medical or financial information without first getting detailed advice from IODPA.

  • 2020-06-17 at 5:57 pm

    That’s interesting! I have a report where an HR assistant submitted a report to the SMP stating in their opinion they would recommend that my banding is reduced! I can only surmise that this was not ethical or indeed lawful.

Comments are closed.