Month: February 2022

When Is Receiving A Back Injury On Duty, Not An Injury On Duty?

IODPA Admin smp
When Is Receiving A Back Injury On Duty, Not An Injury On Duty?

Q: When is receiving a back injury on duty, not an injury on duty?

A: When you are assessed by Dr Vivian.

Here at IODPA, we informally advise a large number of members over their injury awards. We have become aware of a large number of cases where the pensioner has suffered a back injury that has not been assessed on its own merits. Instead statistics are used to suggest that it is not a duty injury, but an age related disability instead.

The SMP who uses this rationale is Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP) Dr Charlie Vivian. We have previously written about Dr Vivian and return to this experienced SMP to examine some of his current practices.

To assist us in our deliberations, some time ago we were passed a paper entitled “The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 – A guide for conducting the Injury Assessment”. This is a document that was written and agreed upon by three SMPs including Dr Vivian and the Northumbria Police’s force solicitor, Nicholas Wirz, another name that you will, no doubt, recognise from previous blogs of ours. 

We have become aware that this document is now in the public domain, and if you search for it, it will be found. As we will be referring to it in this article, we will call it the ‘SMP paper’.

We shall be returning to this paper at a later date to consider in more detail what this group has decided between them, but will point out that nothing contained within it is binding, or even necessarily lawful, and some of it is clearly unlawful in our opinion. But that is a conversation for another day.

To start with, we are going to look at parts of this SMP paper in conjunction with a number of our members who suffered a back injury whilst on duty and were then assessed by Dr Vivian. Discussions that IODPA have had seems to suggest that there is a common theme and citations used in this SMP paper are commonly quoted by Dr Vivian.

The theme goes along these lines; 80% of adults will experience back pain at some stage in their life, therefore you would have had your back problem anyway in [insert number] x number of years regardless of the index injury.

Dr Vivian will then go on to write that the officer is not deserving of an award, apportion it down to 0%, or suggest that at some point in the future the officer will no longer have a duty injury using acceleration. (The thorny subject of aggravation and acceleration is another blog in its own right that we are going to cover in another article).

Let’s have a look at the evidence that Dr Vivian uses to support his assertion.

This is what is written in section 2 of the SMP paper – 

“In principle, causation is a straightforward concept, following the medicolegal construct of post hoc ergo propter hoc. (“This followed that, therefore that caused this”). However, there is compelling evidence that this construct is seriously flawed in most instances, including the onset of back pain and neck pain. It provides an unsatisfactory explanation in cases of psychological injury, and is even more uncertain for the subjective health complaints such as fibromyalgia. (See note 2)”

To support this position, there are footnotes listing various citations, with an introduction of – 

“For back pain, The best evidence confirms:” [our emphasis]

It then says – 

“Back pain is extremely common, affecting up to 80% of the adult population at some point. (Halligan & Aylward, 2006)”

At IODPA, we pride ourselves that we like to do our research before publishing any article. We conducted a quick Google of Halligan & Aylward, which the SMP paper refers to. Google gave us a book on Amazon entitled “The Power of Belief: Psychological Influence on Illness, Disability, and Medicine Paperback”. Pub 2006.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Belief-Psychological-Disability-Psychosocial/dp/0198530110

Page 162 contains the following line –

“Low back pain is common and not confined to any particular demographic group, with a lifetime prevalence of 60 to 80 per cent.”

It is probably worthy of note that this comment bears no citation, or evidence of this being a fact. So, the most commonly used quote by Dr Vivian in his SMP reports has no supportive evidence. Whilst Dr Vivian is not incorrect in saying up to 80%, the actual figure quoted was 60 to 80 per cent. So it seems that he is highlighting the worst possible figure to support his reports, rather than accurately reporting that the figures could be a good 20% less; no mean figure.

Rather interestingly, a review of this book on Amazon by a person called Donnie on 20th September 2012, (written before IODPA was even a twinkle in the creator’s eye), gives the book a one star review – 

 

For those of you using a screen reader, we’ll replicate the text here –

“It should be obvious that placing sections of society under psychos-social management just because they are sick or disabled has important moral and political consequences.  Quite unsurprisingly, the introduction of a biopsychosocial model of disability in the UK, where Aylwayd worked on designing the new welfare system, has led to the weakest members of society being mistreated, for the benefit of those with power and money. I’m uncertain whether Aylward’s association with private insurance companies like UNUM should be taken to indicate corruption, or if his work should just be dismissed as well-meaning foolishness: either way, this book is worth reading only for those interested in the politics of quackery.” [our emphasis]


It is the belief of the author of this note that the trusted Halligan & Aylward may have a hidden agenda in their writings and are probably partisan of employers rather than employees. Donnie states that it will be the weakest members of society who will be mistreated for the benefit of money and power. We associate this comment to the realities injured police officers are facing and see that this quote fits perfectly.

We know that when an officer goes in front of an SMP, any SMP, he or she will be at their most vulnerable. They are extremely unwell. We do not need to remind you that many officers feel that ill-health retirement and latterly, the injury on duty award, is about money and how a SMP has the ultimate power in deciding an individual’s future. It is the job of the SMP to be impartial and we fail to see how that can be achieved if they are quoting biased citations and statistics.

Halligan & Aylward then proceed to quote back pain in adolescence and this time they do cite a source as belonging to Federico Balagué who published a paper on this latter claim in 2003. Balagué was subsequently publicly criticised by other clinicians as to claims regarding lower back claim. – 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60803-4/fulltext

 

It seems as though not everyone agrees with the writings of Halligan & Aylward!

Here, at IODPA, we’re not experts nor medical practitioners in back injuries, and so we do not know who is right and who is wrong. Suffice to say that whatever beliefs you may hold, there will always be others with an equally persuasive opinion to the contrary.

Returning to the SMP paper, it then goes on to quote – 

“In fact, it is abnormal to go more than two years without activity-limiting pain. (Hadler 2007)”

Perhaps Dr Vivian himself suffers from back pain and can sympathise with this precept, but if you were to conduct a survey of your close friends and colleagues would you be able to find anyone that suffers activity-limiting pain every two years? No, nor us!

Another search of the internet reveals Hadler’s paper – 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51390433_Back_Pain_in_the_Workplace

In paragraph 7 of the paper he quotes – 

“It is unlikely that a healthy adult will escape a year without at least 1 important episode of low back pain”.

Footnote 12 attributes this fact to another paper published by Cassidy JD.

This is becoming like Chinese whispers where everyone is quoting and repeating everyone else.  It’s also like social media, where it is often believed that if enough people repeat something then it must be true.

Google being our friend again quickly reveals the following paper entitled – “Incidence and course of low back pain episodes in the general population. Spine.” – 

https://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Abstract/2005/12150/Incidence_and_Course_of_Low_Back_Pain_Episodes_in.21.aspx

The article is only a summary, but it states that the study used the following method – 

“An incidence cohort of 318 subjects free of LBP [lower back pain] and a course cohort of 792 prevalent cases was formed from respondents to a mailed survey.  Incident, recurrent, persistent, aggravated, improved, and resolved episodes were defined by the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. The follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 74% and 62%, respectfully. Annual estimates were age and sex standardized.”

You will see that this was a mailed survey, of size unknown. Of course, when you send out a questionnaire regarding back pain, it is likely that those who respond are either suffering from or have suffered from back pain. People who don’t suffer from such a condition will have no interest in such a survey. A total of 1,110 respondents were used, 318 of whom suffered no lower back pain. So we question what weight or credence can be put on such a small study?

What is more worrying is the fact that a sample of 1,110 subjects can be extrapolated up to suggest that – 

“It is unlikely that a healthy adult will escape a year without at least 1 important episode of low back pain.”

We could go on with these citations, but we don’t wish to embarrass Dr Vivian any more than necessary.

Actually, we will mention one more, because this is worrying. The SMP paper says when referring to whiplash – 

“A study by Simontas and Shen in 2005 looked at demolition derby drivers. Those studied had had on average 2,000 accidents, 500 of which were high velocity (i.e., over 50mph).  The average duration of neck pain was 21 days, and there was no chronic neck pain.”

Are they seriously suggesting that low speed front or rear end shunts by demolition derby drivers who are sitting in modified (reinforced) vehicles with bucket seats, back braces, and special helmets can be compared against those incurred by an operational officer driving a high-speed pursuit in an unmodified vehicle wearing bulky issue equipment?  Seriously???

It appears as though the good Doctor has been cherry picking his statistics to support his case. Statistics are a dangerous tool if used incorrectly, here is an illustrative example.

20% of accidents are caused by people who have been drinking, which means that 80% of accidents are caused by people who are sober, so from this statistic, it is safer to drink and drive. We do not mean that, but do you see the point? Statistics can be written to suit the purpose and agenda of the author using them.

Let’s set aside the flawed data that Dr Vivian appears to be using, as it’s also important to look at how information like this is used. We hear that Dr Vivian has regularly quoted the same statistics, and we have to question the use of such data, even if it could be relied upon.

We know from experience that some of our members have suffered some pretty serious injuries from policing. Back injuries have occurred because officers have had extremely violent fights whilst trying to restrain prisoners, to being thrown down stairs and having vehicles written off in high speed pursuits.

An assessment is about the individual, not what may or may not go on in the wider population and certainly not based on questionable evidence that is now sixteen years old.

To conclude, we believe that this approach is not only flawed because of the reasons given above, but unlawful. An SMP is there to assess that person for their injuries, how they were caused and how it has affected their earning capacity. There is no place introducing any statistics as they are meaningless in this context.

Statistics should not play a part in any report. Reports should be based on the officer’s own individual circumstances and conditions.

What worries us most is that this paper has been sanctioned and signed off, not just by Dr Vivian, but two other prominent and well used SMPs as well as a force solicitor. This paper has no basis in law and that the only lawful documents that should be used in ill-health and injury awards are The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and relevant case law.

True to Form

IODPA Admin smp, Uncategorized
True to Form

In this article, we take a look at the practice of Dr William Cheng in seeking feedback on his performance. Dr Cheng acts in the role of Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) for a number of police pension forces. He makes decisions affecting the pension entitlements of serving and retired police officers.

We are all aware of the concept of feedback. It seems that almost every time you buy something these days, the seller seeks to get you to rate their product and/or service.

Buy a new widget to fix that broken whatsit and no sooner has it been delivered than you get a request for feedback from the widget seller and, most likely, from the delivery firm as well. ‘How did we do?’ they cry!

It’s easy to see what they get out of your cooperation, feedback is valuable. It helps them improve their products and services. Positive feedback is welcome, but negative feedback is undoubtedly the most useful because it highlights failures and indicates areas which would benefit from improvement.

With that in mind, we have become aware that the ubiquitous Dr William Chung Wing Cheng, GMC registration number 1631726, has been presenting a feedback form to serving and former officers he has medically examined/interviewed with a view, in our opinion, to generating only positive feedback.

We reproduce it here.

 

Let’s remind ourselves that Dr Cheng is not contracted by the person he medically examines/interviews. That person is not his customer nor his client. He is paid by the police force and we believe that it should be the force which monitors and evaluates his performance. If feedback forms need to be handed out, they should come from the force but only following the conclusion of any decision-making process.

So, just what is the purpose behind the force giving either tacit or direct approval to Dr Cheng to hand out feedback forms?

There is an enormous level of unease felt by the officers and former officers he medically examines and interviews in respect of their pension entitlements. For every individual who has had the courage and ability to complain about him, there are many more who have good grounds to complain but do not.

As to why individuals do not complain, there are numerous factors. An analysis of them all would divert from the focus of this article.

Dr Cheng has taken it upon himself to attempt to generate some feedback.

Could it be the case that his feedback forms are there only so Dr Cheng and his paymasters can wave them and say, ‘Look, everyone loves this guy’? As you would expect, nobody would ever write anything derogatory when their whole future rests in his hands and a decision must be made.

We hear that Dr Cheng is in the habit of producing this feedback form toward the end of the session with individuals and making it clear that the form is completed and handed back to him before the individual leaves the room. Understandably, some would see this as undue influence that the SMP might not write a favourable report without first being rewarded with positive feedback, or as applying pressure on the individual to write only positive comments.

It could be that Dr Cheng is in need of some positive comments. It is a matter of public record that Dr Cheng had 28.3% of his regulatory decisions overturned by way of appeals to police medical appeal boards, over a five year period.

It has to be remembered that Dr Cheng, for a great part of his duties is dealing with vulnerable and damaged individuals – officers who are facing the certainty of premature retirement due to illness of injury and disabled, often traumatised, former officers whose continuing level of injury pension depends on his decisions. It does not take anything more than common sense to know that unwell individuals might think that not completing Dr Cheng’s form and giving him a good review might negatively affect his decisions.

Our advice to any officer or former officer is to take Dr Cheng’s form and stuff it – in your pocket. Fill it out later, or not, as you think fit, and send it, or not, to the police pension authority, not to Dr Cheng. Bear in mind though that by completing Dr Cheng’s form positively you would be potentially writing off the chances of any future complaint being successful.

If you genuinely receive a fair and professional service from Dr Cheng, we have no problem with giving positive feedback. What we object to is a form being presented to vulnerable people immediately after a consultation, and before the quality of the final report is known.