This form has a mixture of handwritten and typed comments from the EMP. The client statement was signed by her but I really don't know when it was written up by EMP. Most of the remainder of the form is handwritten by EMP but under p3 'clinical finding' it's all typed answers. In the box headed 'Time taken to write up report post examination' the EMP has put 35 mins. What's all this about - I don't get it. Is the EMP saying they completed most sections by hand whilst there but then a paragraph was typed in afterwards ??

I've written to query it but it must be right though particularly as it's completely at odds with the client's own and her GP's evidence!!

Did the doctor recognise that their own writing was so awful it had to be typed up? Does it look like paper has been put over something? If you asked for a PO at an appeal they should bring the original so you could check.

But taking a more sinister look at what has happened here, have you seen CDLA 4127 2003 where another Med Servs doctor alters an EMP report? It was used as the basis for some of the technical challenges to PCA appeals as it concerns unsigned evidence.

I think what really worries me here is that evidence taken at someone's home may have been altered later. It may be that this EMP already completes section 3 back at base - there ought to be guidlines on this kind of thing somewhere.

Have you ever been asked to leave a tribunal room whilst the chair consults a DC on a point? There are arguments that it is unlawful and that the chair must make the decision on their own (this was in a thread ages and ages ago - I've had it twice myself and haven't challenged it and have been unsure about myself in every possible way). It also surely applies to EMPs - they mustn't make conclusions on the basis of post examination consultation with a supervisor, surely? The supervisor could make a separate memo, say.

I don't know. But it sure smells cheesy to me.

(Could it be a Potentially Harmful Medical Evidence job???)

I've come accross reports with a mixture of typing and handwriting before. It could possibly be the same doctor. In the case I had he had pasted sections of text in. He got the gender wrong in some places and it appears he had some standard bits for pasting in. I never did see the original report but the DM at the DBC said it had several bits of paper stuck on with glue.

I wrote to the doctor via medical services for an explanation but it turned out he was on holiday. In the hearing I said there were too many unexplained matters for the report to be relied on. We won. A couple of weeks later the EMP gave me a call a bit upset that someone had suggested there could be anything improper in his report (I had actually only asked for an explanation). His explanation was internally inconsistent and inherently improbable to say the least and he was so indignant he sounded like a doctor from an Ealing comedy. He also said he had done it several times before.

That's a bit like the old car insurance claim form quote but in reverse:

"I ran over a man. He admitted it was his fault and that he had been run over before."

Andrew, you're off your ed

You may find a lot of the recent case on the electronic medical reports for ICB useful. They reference reliability and validity of the medical evidence.

A keyword search for 'electronic' in the briecase area of rightsnet comes up with summaries of 6 commissioner decisions of the type northwiltshire suggests, each with a link to the full decision itself.

thanks - will do