Essex police have engaged Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) Dr William Chung Wing Cheng to conduct their Regulation 37(1) reviews under The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. Many of our readers will be familiar with the name of Dr Cheng as he is also employed by a number of other forces, predominantly in the South East corner of England along with the Metropolitan Police, to conduct ill health retirement appointments.
Having spoken to a number of pensioners who have had a consultation with Dr Cheng, it appears as though he is conducting Essex reviews using the same methodology as when he considers an ill-health retirement. This is not only worrying, but wrong in law. The case of LAWS – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1099.html makes it very clear that a reassessment under Regulation 37(1) is a comparison exercise between the last known position (either the initial grant of an IOD award, or the last review) and the date of the consultation. It seems to be very clear to us that Dr Cheng is carrying out a fresh assessment rather than carrying out a comparison between the two dates.
The questions that Dr Cheng asks are exactly the same regardless of whether he is assessing ill-health retirement, an injury award, or a review. Many of the questions are not even relevant to a review, but some are specifically designed to provide Dr Cheng with justification to reduce a pensioner.
We recommend that before the pensioner enters the front door, they should start to overtly record the consultation, which is your right, and has been confirmed by the General Medical Council (‘GMC’). Dr Cheng may object, or ask that he is furnished with a copy. He may also request that it should be forwarded to the force’s Human Resources (‘HR’) Occupational Health (‘OH’) department, who incidentally, are not entitled to listen to a person’s private medical and confidential examination.
The GMC guidance states,
“Although the GMC expects doctors to obtain patients’ consent to make a visual or audio recording, patients do not need their doctor’s permission to record a consultation, because they are only processing their own personal information and are therefore exempt from data protection principles.
Section 36 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states,
“Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs are exempt from data protection principles.”
“If you suspect a patient is covertly recording you, you may be upset by the intrusion, but your duty of care means you would not be justified in refusing to continue to treat the patient. If you did, it could rebound on you and further damage your relationship with the patient. Remember that your refusal to continue with the consultation could also be recorded. A more pragmatic response might be to invite the patient to record the consultation openly and ask them whether you can have a copy of the recording, which can then become part of the patient’s medical records. In seeking their consent, you should reassure them the recording will be stored securely by the practice and only used for this purpose.”
As can be seen, the doctor needs to obtain a patient’s (your) consent to record the appointment. There is no requirement to give Dr Cheng, or anyone else a copy of the recording.
Onto the appointment itself.
Let us start with the waiting room, before the meeting even starts. It is likely that Dr Cheng or his receptionist will hand across a clipboard with a piece of paper which provides information about the role and requirements of a SMP. The documentation is pretty generic and from what we have seen, it relates to ill health retirement with no real relevance to a review.
Dr Cheng will often use a room which is not suitable for the consultation. It is usually too small to comfortably fit more than three people. It is your right, to be accompanied to the consultation by a family member, a support assistant, a Federation rep, a Mackenzie’s Friend, or any other person that you may consider necessary based on your mental or physical health. You should cite reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. It is YOUR consultation and you should feel properly supported.
Dr Cheng will often use the room size as an attempt to reduce the number of people a pensioner brings with them. He may go further by suggesting that the appointment be delayed. Be firm, and insist on those that you wish to remain, and that the consultation should go ahead with the people who are supporting you also present.
There should not be anyone else present in the room, that you have not invited other than Dr Cheng. We hear occasionally that there is an additional person in the room who is not introduced nor any medical credentials given. Dr Cheng MUST seek permission with the pensioner for any third party to be present in the appointment. If you are uncomfortable with a third party being present, during what will be a private medical discussion, representation must be made and the person asked to leave the room. We believe that it is an unfair and unethical approach that no prior permission is sought by Dr Cheng in these instances.
Once in the room, the chairs will have been purposely arranged. The pensioner, particularly for those with mental health conditions such as PTSD, will be invited to sit on a chair which will have the door to their back. It is a known fact that many PTSD sufferers will not be able to sit with their back to any door; they need to see all exits and be able to view the whole room. Dr Cheng is waiting to see if you move the chair. If you are not happy with the positioning, move the chair, it is YOUR consultation. A record will be made within his report if the pensioner does not ask to move chairs. This is the first subtle test of the appointment. If a pensioner does not ask to change places, his logic is that their PTSD cannot be that bad.
For those with physical conditions such as back problems, it is likely that uncomfortable chairs will be provided, or there will be no back supports such as a cushion. If you are not happy with the chair, ask for another, it is YOUR consultation. He will make a note if you sit on an unsuitable chair for any length of time.
If you have a physical disability and find it difficult to sit still or in the same place for long periods, get up and walk around the room. You are allowed to ask for a toilet break. It is highly likely that Dr Cheng will make a note in your report if you do not do these things, but will not mention it if you do. We would recommend that you actually say out loud, for the purposes of the tape that you need to stand up or move around so that it is captured on the tape recording and there can be no dispute that you needed to do this.
It is YOUR consultation, and you can do whatever makes you comfortable. He will make a note in your report if you sit for long periods or do not move about or do not complain.
Here is a list of questions (not definitive) that he puts to virtually all pensioners, regardless of whether they have a physical disability or a mental health condition.
He will ask –
- About your antecedent history, for example, the age, occupations and health of your parents and children along with dates of any marriages or how long people have been together. He will return to them to test you if you cannot remember them. He will often throw the wrong dates back at you on purpose to see if you correct him. These questions are designed to check your memory skills. Our belief is that the logic behind these questions is that if you are able to remember all these various numbers, then you are not that mentally unwell.
- About your current relationship, and the names and ages of those in the room with you if they are family members.
- What your partner does and how many hours they work?
- If your partner leaves you to fend for yourself for long periods on your own whilst they work? This is to establish whether you are alone through the day and whether you can manage by yourself for ‘x’ number of hours.
- What type of education did you have and what qualifications you possess?
- Whether you have worked, what you have done and the details and dates of that work. As well as determining what your current work capability is, these types of questions are establishing any skills-set and qualifications you may have which can be used in the civilian world.
- What medication you were on when you retired and what medication you are on today, and whether it’s increased or decreased?
- What treatments that you have or may be receiving?
- What medical problems or illnesses you had before ill-health retirement?
- What time do you get up?
- How do you wash or shower?
- What you ate for breakfast.
- What you do in your day.
- Do you sleep during the day?
- What time do you have your evening meal?
- What time do you go to bed?
- Who looks after the garden and pets i.e. are you capable of looking after or caring for other dependent things?
- Who does the housework, you or your partner?
- Do you watch TV, how long do you sit for, what do you watch?
- What hobbies that you may have, and how you fill your day?
- If you drink alcohol and how much you consume? Any answer in the affirmative could be used against you in that you may not have PTSD, but are instead, an alcoholic. This has been used on a number of occasions.
- Whether you are in receipt of certain benefits such as IIDB or CSA?
- You to spell a word backwards such as ‘WORLD’ or ‘SCHOOL’?
- You to count backward from 100 subtracting 7 on each occasion?
Again, both these questions are designed to test your cognitive functions, memory and concentration. Even a physical injury will be asked to answer these questions.
If Dr Cheng does not get the response he wants, he will manufacture the result to support his case. Where a pensioner has failed to spell or count backwards i.e. they’re plainly unable to perform this task, Dr Cheng will write that they were able to complete the task, but “with errors”.
Moving on from the questions, let us discuss what type of examination Dr Cheng will conduct on a pensioner.
He will ask them to stand on their toes and rock backwards and forwards, or to squat. He will also request that they move their head from side to side. This is regardless of whether you have a physical or mental disability.
However, he will take your blood pressure. If it is a normal reading, he is likely to say that you are not anxious or ill as he is suggesting that a person’s blood pressure should be raised if in a distressing and stressful situation.
Dr Cheng is unlikely to do any further physical examinations, even for those suffering with physical injuries and has previously stated that he would not be able to establish anything more than the specialist reports that he may have in his possession (and will then later go on to ignore!).
He is likely to report on how a pensioner looks and dresses. He will comment on whether a pensioner is able to make eye contact with him when speaking, what their speech sounds like, or whether they become physically alert and distressed if they hear a siren outside the office. Again, he will be looking to see the reactions of someone who suffers from PTSD. Of course, not everyone who has PTSD is triggered by sirens but this seems to have been lost on him.
Be in no doubt that Dr Cheng will have thoroughly read through your GP medical records to see if there is anything in your history that may be the cause of your injury i.e. if you are a mental health injury, he will be looking at whether you have suffered stress, anxiety, depression before and what was the cause. Likewise, if you are a physical injury and whether you had any history prior to your index injury on duty.
We would recommend that you read and check your own GP notes prior to the appointment so you know what is in there and what he will be seeing. It is important that you check for any inaccuracies that may have been written in your notes and has never been corrected. Moreover, reading through your records will refresh your memory on what you have previously consulted the doctors about. Do not let him surprise you with anything. What you have read is exactly what he will read.
What Dr Cheng is also very adept at doing, is to root through your medical records and find somewhere that it states you feel better and then quote this phrase out of context. For example, if you have had a hydrocortisone injection in a painful shoulder it may give you a limited amount of instant relief (until it wears off). Of course the underlying problem remains, and so does your disability, but if you have made a comment to the physician, that it made you feel better, then Dr Cheng will quote this as an improvement in your condition.
Dr Cheng will report on anything he considers that he can use to show an improvement in your condition or your mental well-being.
At the end of the consultation, as we have already covered in a previous blog – https://iodpa.org/2022/02/09/true-to-form/, Dr Cheng will present you with a feedback questionnaire for you to sign. It is likely that pressure will be placed on the pensioner to complete it there and then. As in our previous blog, our recommendation is to take hold of the questionnaire form and state you will complete it later. There is no requirement to complete it, either at the appointment or at home. Of course, we are well aware that many people complete it in Dr Cheng’s favour in the hopes that they will receive a favourable report. It matters not if the questionnaire is completed or not in this respect. If you feel that Dr Cheng has not behaved satisfactory in the appointment, it would be worth sending the questionnaire to the GMC for them to log it rather than return it to Dr Cheng who may just discard any derogatory reports written about him.
From what we have been told by various sources, Dr Cheng will show very little compassion whatsoever when a pensioner recalls traumatic events and breaks down. Many people have voiced their surprise and shock at such a lack of empathy from a doctor. He may ask if you felt in fear of your life.
He will not usually ask how the pensioner is or if there has been any change in your condition since your last review or the grant of your IOD award.
Experience shows that the report prepared by Dr Cheng is not likely to provide any evidence that there has been a “substantial change” in your condition, which is a requirement in law. It will most likely just state that you have got better. In these cases, Dr Cheng’s determinations should be challenged as you are entitled to do under the regulations.
Finally, it is worth highlighting that Dr Cheng can come across as quite polite and friendly, but do not be fooled. In our opinion, the old adage ‘A sheep in wolf’s clothing’ springs to mind.
If you require further advice, or if you have had a recent consultation with Dr Cheng, and we have omitted to include something that may be of use to others, please get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org
27 thoughts on “Dr Cheng And Regulation 37(1) Reassessment Of Injury Pension”
It would be entirely appropriate for all SMP’s to read, and learn the appropriate regulations and to carry out their appointments in the spirit of and in line with the regulation as originally written. Not the regulations according to an interpretation by someone with a vested interest in cost cutting, rather than the welfare of an individual who has sustained life-changing injuries in the execution of their duties through no fault of their own. It would be appropriate to remember ‘Do no harm’ too. Alongside humility and dignity, it would allow them to do their job far more appropriately.
“We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.” Dr Martin Luther King
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. Dr Martin Luther King
“We owe a huge debt to those who risk their own lives to keep us safe.” Prime Minister Boris Johnson
The tragedy here is that good people know what’s going on but are not prepared to stop it.
Does Dr Cheng and those supporting and encouraging him deny that mental health illness is the only condition that regularly causes sufferers to commit suicide?
Are they also ignorant to the fact that most of those sufferers will still try and disguise their difficulties and act as if nothing much is wrong?
I suggest that even those who are very seriously affected and debilitated by their mental health illness would still try and answer Dr Cheng’s questions. This does not mean they are in any way okay. Just in the same way that so many sufferers who sadly take their own lives act in the build up as if nothing is wrong. How many times do we hear family and friends say there were no signs he/she would do this, they seemed happy and okay, or, things appeared to be getting better for them, etc, etc?
I am truly sorry to talk about this subject and am sorry if it has caused distress to anyone. But the reality of mental health illness is that sufferers mostly still try and please and reassure others. I think it’s because they can’t deal with the pressure of any attention as well as the stigma which most certainly still exists. Thankfully there are health care professionals who certainly understand this far better than I do.
So what does this really say about Dr Cheng who I’m told also usually ignores such expert evidence?!
Isn’t it now time for all the good people to do something and stop this reckless, damaging, despicable individual and his cheerleader firmly in their tracks?
The behaviour and process outlined in this blog cannot be allowed to continue. We must do all we can to stop this now!!
Well done for a very informative and interesting article full of great advice. Such a shame we have to worry about this type of unfair behaviour by a so called ‘professional’ person.
We know reviews can be conducted. We do not have an argument for that. In fact, in some cases, reviews would be most welcome when a former officer’s condition/ injury has sustantially worsened and there is a chance of being upbanded. However, this type of fair review is rarely held. No matter what Essex and others like to tell us,this is about saving money through and through.
IODPA, is there any way of finding out how many people have been reviewed so far and the results from those reviews? If I was a betting man, I can guarantee that this ‘doctor’ has reduced more pensioners than he has upbanded or kept the same.
And I, along with countless others, would also be interested in knowing the rationale of such reductions.
From reading this blog, there seems to be a rather nefarious way of reducing people,based on the their ability of being able to spell ‘School’ backwards, counting down from 100 in 7s and knowing your parents dates of birth. Does Cheng seriously believe that being able to do this would mean that someone is not ill with a mental health condition? Or would be able to earn based on this conjecture alone?
I would be intrigued to hear from someone further up the medical food chain in relation to these types of questions to tell us what it proves…or disproves.
This is a must read blog, please spread the word, I have done so and have been extremely encouraged with the response, both from those with a potential vested interest and those without.
It is absolutely clear that we do have the support of the public and more and more current serving officers are becoming aware of what’s going on here and they are genuinely concerned and actually quite angry with some degree of disbelief.
I would only add to what has already been said that I personally will also have a lawyer with me if and when I have to see Cheng. I would strongly recommend everyone does the same. The IODPA Trustees can recommend excellent lawyers who are already fully briefed.
Knowledge as we know is power. Gone are the days when Cheng can do and say as he pleases. It is up to us to defend our rights and this is what we will do.
I also have to say shame on you Essex Police Chief Constable. You are presiding over an action which is unfair, totally biased and psychologically damaging to already sick and injured former officers. It is not clever and the longer it goes on the more it will cost you. It will cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money, it will cost you your own reputation and it will cost you a loss of goodwill and confidence from a growing number of your current serving officers who may now think twice before risking injury!
It is noted that on the Essex Police Website you say this in your bio….”I’m the Chief Constable of Essex Police and am very proud to be leading the brave people who protect and serve the county every day.”
Yes, they are indeed very brave people and it’s good to know you are proud to lead them. But are you also proud to be leading a civilian team who are now hounding some of your former brave officers with an apparent obsession to reduce the value of their pension at almost any cost?!
I am aware you did not have the decency or courtesy to reply to a letter sent to you which raised concerns about these reviews several months ago. As a public servant that is frankly quite disgraceful.
However you also say in your bio… “We’re committed to learn and we’re always listening to feedback from our officers, staff, volunteers and members of the public for any ways we can improve.”
So maybe we should give you another chance, let us all hope your words are true Chief Constable Harrington, it would be good to hear from you, it’s not too late, yet !
I am soon to become a qualified Lawyer and have always wanted to meet Dr Cheng. I specialise in Equality matters.
I am another of the very firm belief that it is way beyond time that “Dr” Cheng (Doctor being used in the loosest possible terms) is challenged not only in person, but in a court of law and also dealt with properly by the GMC, possibly by means of a mass he grounds that he is not fit to perform duties of a medical doctor.
Should he ever come calling at my door, I’m with the previous commenter – he better hire a bloody big room…..he will need it to fit in my wife, my Fed Rep, my solicitor and more importantly, MY OWN GP too…my GP has prior knowledge of this useless excuse of a doctor, as well as having previously been an SMP himself (a very, very fair and open SMP at that!) and has absolute 100% commitment to ensure that should I be reviewed, it will be done properly, by the rules and under full audio and video recording….and if Cheng tries anything untoward he will be the subject of a major complaint not only from me, but also from a highly respected GP, to the GMC and, if he acts illegally also to the very Police he will be working for. He seriously needs to learn that bullying (and make no bones about it, this IS a form of bullying!), is unacceptable and will be challenged on every count.
Sadly my condition is lifelong and I am unlikely to ever be reviewed….severed nerves can’t grow back…but regardless, I am well prepared to take on this oxygen thief.
Can you please share with the trustees as to who your GP is ? I think I may see them for a private report.
I think it’s essential that any contact with Dr Cheng, Mr Kirby, or any other member of their team must be recorded, including any telephone conversations.
Sadly Essex Police are attracting a terrible reputation concerning their conduct surrounding these reviews, which is shared between many legal advisers and a growing number of current serving officers.
So tread with extreme caution, record everything and make sure everything is put in writing. As this excellent and most informative blog says do not be fooled into thinking you will be treated fairly and in accordance with the law. You won’t. These people will try anything and everything to find any reason, no matter how dubious, to lower your injury award banding.
As a previous poster mentioned, most of these reviews will almost certainly end up being challenged in a PMAB appeal and as so many rules and regulations appear to be continually breached by Dr Cheng, including relevant and recent case law, I think there will be a Judicial Review hearing in the very near future which will also re-visit some of the the bad law revealed in the Goodland case.
So hang tight everyone, there will come a time when these people will be brought to account.
In the meantime we are not alone, we have excellent support, expert advice and so much help is on side, the tide is turning.
Dr Cheng is a chancer, he’s had his time, he’s days are numbered, trust me, I’m not a doctor!!
What is it about Police Forces and there choice of SMP’s?
You can be a prized officer, a Chief’s commendation holder one day, who then by leading from the front, suddenly arrives in a situation where they are seriously injured on duty.
So betide to anyone that that happens, as overnight, to the force you then become a different type of officer! One who has gone from the pinnacle of praise, to that of a malingerer, a liar, a faker and untrustworthy.
Surely not you think, but if that’s not true, then why do these SMP’s adopt such dirty practices to measure the injuries and the state these incidents have left the officer in?
It didn’t used to be this way, as naturally, those whose calling was to help others by being Police Officers, were usually genuine people, who would tell the truth.
Remember, many people see a police career as a vocation and one they don’t want to give up. In most cases, if these poor officers are being economical with the truth, it’s because they want to continue their careers, not end them.
SMP’s are supposed to be independent. I’ve seen a couple who were, but they didn’t last long, as you see, that doesn’t suit their paymasters, the very forces from which the officers are being reviewed.
So it’s quickly a case of if the SMP doesn’t do want the force wants, (i.e. save money on Pensions’ by reducing pensioners IOD pensions), then somehow, their contracts are not continued and SMP’s who are more favourable to the forces as appointed, as in this case with Doctor Cheng.
Out the window goes any useful communication and in its place comes the tactics listed here. It doesn’t matter what the Countries leading Specialists say, it’s his pure opinion and only that opinion that counts.
If we were to spread this way of working into other scientific areas, then we would see ‘Karen’, who read lots of things on Facebook etc., in charge of research into transmittable diseases, such as COVID. Shocking, Yes, but that’s the reality of how the system works with certain SMP’s.
Having just been through a review pmab with Cheng, I can say that he did almost all of these things. He took a lot of medical records entries out of context and drew his own inferences, even if they were entirely incorrect.
Dr CHENG i am sure you will be reading this, you act in a medico-legal field and under the auspice of the GMC. Let me refresh your memory were you acted as an SMP as referred to below in the case of Miss S PO-11926, you were referred to as the fist IMRP. At paragraph 22 of the findings as submitted by Haven’s solicitors, a firm you are well acquainted with it states at bullet point 3, ” it agreed with the findings of the GMC investigation into the first medical examiner, which found there were serious failing of his assessment of Miss S”. This appears to be a negative GMC finding against said first IMRP. At bullet point 5 of the same paragraph, “it was a matter of fact and record that a second IRMP had to be found and it was the acts and omissions of the first IRMP which caused a deterioration in Miss S’s health” So much for a Doctor applying his knowledge, skills and expertise in an area in which he is qualified! Now we have dealt with an area with which most Doctors are familiar, lets look at the legal side of another PO decision again Dr CHENG you purport to have a legal qualification so should know better. The decision i refer to is the case of Mr N PO-19120, at paragraph 33,”…given that Dr CHENG had reached his decision under a mistaken view of the regulations..”
It seems you are not very competent at making either medical or legal assessments the words speak for themselves and will prove without doubt most useful when your decisions are appealed preferably at JR when you can give account in the witness box.
I have come across yet another PO decision regarding CHENG that went in favour of the applicant. Ms E 18 Oct 2016 PO-5477 regarding an injured TVP officer, incidentally CHENG is still their SMP. Note at para 9 the officer said that Dr CHENG had told her he never gave 100% disablement, this indicates bias. At para 23, Ms E says documents were cherry picked by Dr CHENG. At para 27, Ms E feels there is the potential for a conflict of interest to arise because TVP’s then pension manager (Chris SHARP) and Dr CHENG sit on the national HR board for the PMAB. She says that the pensions manager represented TVP at her PMAB and that both he and CHENG would be acquainted with members of the PMAB from previous meetings. All of this food for thought as to how CHENG works interestingly SHARP resigned from his position shortly after this case for procedural irregularities, this i believe is mentioned in an earlier IODPA blog.
There will come a time when Cheng and Kirby will mess with the wrong one. They think they are dealing with soft targets and therefore feel comfortable treating everyone in the same old way. Everyone knows what’s going on, it’s basically corrupt, it’s unfair, it’s dishonest, it’s damaging and it really does not save a penny, which is their ultimate goal.
But if you keep trying to ruin people’s lives by treating them without any respect and by twisting the truth in order to achieve a certain outcome, irrespective of the true evidence, then there will surely come a time when one of their victims will do something bad, either to them self or to others.
I do think Cheng and Kirby need to be careful,.This is not intended in any way to be a threat, it is said in good faith and genuinely meant as sound advice. I am truly shocked when I think they must believe they can continue like this with the only risk being a £10,000 tax funded payment being required, plus Cheng’s additional fee for every PMAB appeal following a Cheng conducted review. From what I have heard so far and what others have planned it seems pretty much nailed on that every Cheng review will end up at a PMAB.
So wake up Chief Constable and stop this nonsense now. It is not a good look for Essex Police, serving officers are being briefed on what is going on and it will not save you any money whatsoever.
If you must continue with reviews then do so fairly, with compassion and with some respect for who are now private citizens don’t forget, former officers who are all disabled through no fault of their own. Stop all the hate and get rid of those in your organisation who are driving this current obsessive and unjust campaign. As Chief Constable you are the Police Pension Authority and are therefore ultimately responsible. With respect please act now before it all becomes even worse!!
It is very important that anyone going to an SMP does NOT go alone. They NEED to have someone familiar with the regulations and with balls! It is also very important to record the interview. Take 2 small recorders with sim cards, that way if he asks for a copy you just give him the sim card from one of the recorders. If you are obviously ‘prepared’ they won’t want a copy! It is also important to tell the SMP that YOU want to see their report BEFORE it goes to the HR of your Force! This is where whoever is with you can do the talking, because YOU will not be able to think straight!
It is also important that you be aware that they can be watching you for as long as it takes you to get into the building, and during however long they keep you waiting to see the SMP. Many games are played by them, and any staff who work at the place where you have to go for the appointment!
You should not have to sign anything there either!
If you are due to be reviewed, read this Cheng blog over and over again until it is fixed in your head. It’s not just Cheng that is doing this stuff either! Most SMP’s are told, before they ever see you, what your Force wants and expects them to do.
If you are a wheelchair user they will make difficulties for you too.
Another informative article. Thank you. Where would be as pensioners without your help? Thanks for keeping us alert to the methods of this arrogant and heartless man.
Seems like a clear case of a complaint to the GMC if any of this happens as the actions are obviously devious and dishonest and NOT in the best interests of the patient.
I believe the GMC has been informed of complaints against this SMP on a number of occasions.
However, the GMC is an organisation in similar terms to the National Rifle Association (NRA), of the USA. They seem either blind, or unwilling to accept the evidence included in complaints and continue to allow this activity to happen.
Remember, as in the USA, it’s not the weapon, (in this case Cheng), whose to blame, it’s the officer for getting themselves injured in the first place!
Sergeant Major, This ‘man’ is a complete ‘c***.’
Excellent blog and genuine advice that should never have been needed.
It is an absolute disgrace that vulnerable injured on duty police officers are being subjected to this.
Thanks for the sad but essential advice
Wow, how devious can you get with injured Police Officere.
I thought I had heard of this type of thing previously. A newspaper article from 9 years ago highlighted this type of thing going on with a company called ATOS who carried out DWP assessments for work capability.
Doctors Medical assessments of benefit applicants at Atos Healthcare were designed to incorrectly assess claimants as being fit for work, one of the company’s former senior doctors has claimed.
Greg Wood, a GP who worked at the company as a senior adviser on mental health issues, said claimants were not assessed in an “even-handed way”, that evidence for claims was never put forward by the company for doctors to use, and that medical staff were told to change reports if they were too favourable to claimants.
The doctor claimed he resigned in disgust at what was going on, saying that many doctors he had spoken to shared his concerns. “I think the Department for Work and Pensions is the real culprit here. It’s the government training that makes Atos assessors do this.”
Move on 9 years and here we see a hired gun doing the same exact thing, but this time his paymasters are not ATOS or the DWP but are instead the Police Pension Authorities (PPA’s) Chief Constables.
Last year (2014) the British Medical Association called for the tests to be scrapped to prevent harm to the most vulnerable people in society. Wood said that although his contract with Atos had a confidentiality clause, he was breaking it in the “public interest”. He told the Guardian: “In my experience [Atos assessors] are not free to make independent recommendations, important evidence is frequently missing or never sought in the first place, medical knowledge is twisted and points are often wrongly withheld through the use of an erroneously high standard of proof.”
He said if Atos assessors “show deviation from the official line they are instructed to change the report. In about a quarter of assessments important documentary evidence such as the claimant’s own GP assessment is missing but the assessments go ahead regardless.”
What an awful man.!!
Anyway. My advice if you, or someone you know is due to go and see Cheng for a review, get advice! Then get some more advice. Take a friend.
Do NOT think you can outsmart him on your own. He is a cunning, horrid man with no compassion.
I have had the displeasure to go against him and Essex HR in I’ll health hearings. He is a tricky man. Do not trust him.
How can this be allowed to happen?
Kirby, the man conducting these reviews in Essex Police was previously found (some say with criminal intent) to have changed the wording and therefore meaning of the regulations to the detriment the pensioners. The previous Chief Constable, obviously far wiser than the current one, stopped all reviews and apologised.
Now Cheng (the hatchet man) is disregarding the regulations and case law in favour of his paymasters. I hope it comes back to bite Essex Police with a bill far larger than any money that they hope to save, which despite their repeated assurances is the object of the exercise!
Another well written and informative blog, thank you. How sad that a so called professional with supposedly an ethical code and integrity can act in such a manner in order to please his paymaster. This name has been around for so long now in a similar light the stress and anxiety that he has caused to so many including their families is beyond belief. Can only hope that karma exists.
If I’m ever unfortunate enough to be reviewed by this quack he will find that my solicitor will be present, and all questions answered by my solicitor with a blanket, “there has been no change in my client’s index medical condition since the day I was assessed by the SMP.”
This does not sound like a fair and just examination. No one should be tricked or set up in this manner. Cheng is renowned for bad reviews and not awarding the correct banding, he has had many complaints against him to the GMC but they have always ruled in his favour!! It is astonishing that he is still practicing medicine and carrying out reviews.
I can’t wait for the day that he retires as that is the only way he will stop. This kind of behaviour is disgusting when you are dealing with sick and injured people he should hang his head. I know for a fact that he has made people worse due to his underhand methods and that is against the ethics of a doctor.
Good luck to anyone who has him as the SMP, some are bad but he takes the overall crown!
Comments are closed.