Merseyside Police

Merseyside – Medical Retirement Officer

IODPA Admin Ill-health retirement, Review
Merseyside – Medical Retirement Officer

One of our members recently brought our attention to a job opportunity for Merseyside Police entitled ‘Medical Retirement Officer‘ which attracts a salary between £36,996 and £43,098.

This position was recently posted on their jobs portal (https://jobs.merseyside.police.uk/jobs/#en/sites/CX) a copy of which we have posted below.

There should be nothing unusual about a position such as this I hear you say, but the devil is in the detail.

The introduction says that the team you’ll be working with are a kind, ambitious and diverse team. That’s great to hear, when there is so little empathy and understanding over ill-health and injured officers, a kind person to help administer ill-health and injury pensions is in short supply.

Let’s have a look at some of the requirements from the job description.

To manage the investigation and process of police and staff retirement on the grounds of ill health.

Now that’s a strange requirement to manage the investigation? If an officer has suffered ill-health or an injury on duty, what sort of investigation do they anticipate is needed?

To ensure maximum savings to the force budget through the robust investigation of injury award applications, injury award reviews, medical appeals and reviewing permanently disabled officers who have been retained in service.

So we’ve only had to wait until the second paragraph for the force to show its hand. They are clearly not after an employee that will administer the Police Pension Regulations 2015 (PPR), or The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (PIBR) without fear or favour, they want someone to that will save the force as much money as they can regardless of the entitlement or consequences to their officers or pensioners.

Let’s break that sentence down into more detail.

the robust investigation of injury award applications

They require that applications be robustly investigated. What do they mean by investigated, and robustly at that? If an officer has suffered an injury whilst on duty, almost certainly the force would have been aware of it. The question of disability, permanency, whether it was ‘on duty’ and the level of disablement is a medical one and one which MUST be referred to the Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP).

the robust investigation of … injury award reviews

What part of injury reviews does Merseyside Police anticipate will require an investigation? The Medical Retirement Officer is NOT entitled to see any medical information that may be required by the SMP, so what are they investigating?

the robust investigation of … medical appeals

Again, there can only be limited involvement of the Medical Retirement Officer as they are not entitled to see any medical information supplied to the Police Medical Appeal Board (PMAB)

reviewing permanently disabled officers who have been retained in service

A disabled officer that’s been retained will have deemed to have been permanently disabled (until normal retirement age) by a SMP. What do Merseyside Police expect their Medical Retirement Officer to review?

Under the section entitled knowledge and experience –

Knowledge of the Police Pension Regulations and legal precedents are essential, along with associated Home Office guidance relating to issues of pension and injury award.

We’d certainly agree that such an applicant would need to have a good a knowledge of the regulations and case law, but we’re struggling to understand what Home Office guidance they are referring to considering that the Home Office withdrew their Police Medical Appeal Board guidance on 1st September 2022?

A good knowledge of investigative procedures and Force information / intelligence systems

Again, there is a requirement for an investigator and the use of force intelligence systems. What information is held on their force intelligence systems that relate their own officers or pensioners?

Knowledge and understanding of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with regards to surveillance and investigation of officers and pensioners believed to be falsely claiming compensation.

So there we have it, this role entitled ‘Medical Retirement Officer’ is not really an administrative role, but one designed to spy and investigate it’s own staff and pensioners. It seems as though every injured officer should be aware that they may have someone reading all their social media posts, going through their rubbish, and filming them whilst out shopping!

Analytical skills are required in respect of the calculations of compensation for injury awards and the assessment of earnings capacity in line with Home office guidance.

Now we really have a problem, because the process of determining the loss of earning capacity under the PIBR is a medical one, not one that a civilian should be getting involved in and if they do, it is likely that they will be acting unlawfully in the process. They should play no part in any calculations that relate to injury pensions.

Ability to display tact, sensitivity, confidentiality and diplomacy with individuals who have genuine concerns for their futures, including financial concerns.

Again, we don’t fall out with this sentiment but read on…

A high level of persuasiveness, assertiveness and negotiating skills is required when dealing with matters relating to all aspects of ill-health retirement.

Hang on a minute, why would the role need a high level of persuasiveness? Who needs persuading? What do they need persuading about, not to make a claim, to drop their claim, to agree to a lessor claim?

Assertiveness

Is this another expression for brow-beating a vulnerable individual to agree to something?

Negotiating skills

What is that needs negotiating? The job description has already stated that the application needs to understand the PPR 2015 and the PIBR. There is no negotiating needed. All they need to do is to follow the legislation and current case law.

Decision making skills are required when entering into negotiations regarding continuance of medical appeals, reduction or increase of an officers injury benefit and making recommendations if a member of staff should be retired or not.

Wow! negotiations regarding continuance of medical appeals. This implies more and potentially unlawful pressure on individuals with protected characteristics to drop their medical appeal which they are entitled to do under the regulations

reduction or increase of an officers injury benefit

This requirement is also worrying. Regulation 37(1) of the PIBR determines whether a pensioner’s injury pension is increased or decreased, and this is after the medical determination of a SMP. It is not the role of a medical retirement officer to interfere in this process.

This job vacancy within Merseyside Police, causes us a great deal of concern on how this force will continue to deal with their injured officers and pensioners. We always knew that those leaving this force faced a difficult process due to the individuals involved previously. However, from this advertisement, it now becomes clear why these officers/ pensioners were treated as such. It was all in their job description!

Court rules that there are two sides to every story

IODPA Admin caselaw, newsflash, pmab, police injury award
Court rules that there are two sides to every story

IODPA would like to congratulate David Lock QC and Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors for another successful judgement that was handed down last week by the High Court in the case of R (Michaelides) v Police Medical Appeal Board [2019] EWHC 1434 (Admin).

We have included the full judgement at the bottom of the article for you to read.

Robin Michaelides moved to Scotland in 2001 from South Africa where he was a police officer, and joined a Scottish force. He did well there, and passed the promotion exam for the rank of Sergeant, before transferring to Merseyside Police.

He was promised by Merseyside that his promotion qualification would be accepted, but that promise was soon broken. Robin also faced numerous incidents of racial abuse and discrimination from his fellow officers in Merseyside. Senior officers did nothing to address the concerns he raised and seem to have instead viewed him as a troublemaker.

Robin was given no assistance in getting up to speed with English law, and was posted to CID without any appropriate training.

His health suffered under the persistent abuse, and eventually in 2015 after several periods of sick leave he was made subject to an Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedure, the stress of which only served to worsen his mental health. Robin was retired from Merseyside by the Chief Constable in August 2015.

His application for an injury award was rejected, and Robin appealed the decision to a Police Medical Appeal Board, where it was again refused.

The matter was successfully challenged, and the decision of the court is that the matter should be remitted back to a (preferably new) PMAB.

 

David Lock QC had the following to say about the case –

“The court affirmed (albeit on an obiter basis) the approach of the Court of Appeal in Boskovic to the Evans/Doubtfire point.  That, of course, may or may not remain good law depending on the outcome of the application for permission to appeal in Boskovic to the Supreme Court (which awaits a decision).

However, perhaps more significantly, the claim was successful because the Court affirmed the need for the PMAB to act as a proper fact finding tribunal where there are disputed facts.  Thus a PMAB which fails to act as a proper fact finding tribunal before exercising its medical decision making function will act unlawfully.”

 

This is an important case because there are often two version of events presented to an SMP or a PMAB, one from the officer, and one from the force. What it instructs the medical authorities to do is to consider all the evidence available regardless of the source and give sufficient consideration before dismissing one version or the other.