I have received a copy of an EMP report which includes two copies of the same page. On the first copy there is an "NB: See harmful information" and then the whole page is scored through by hand and "do not copy" is written across it. The second copy of the same page has had the "NB: See harmful information" tippexed out. Wondered if I was ever meant to get the first copy?!

I phoned DBU and they told me they will not send me the harmful info as a rep. They said the tribunal will get a copy of it. Where is the equality of arms?

Write to TAS and ask them for a copy from the case papers. Then write to complain to the customers services at the disability benefits centre. You don't have to show your client this information.

The DBU have to send 2 copies of the sub to TAS - one with the PHME (Potentially Harmful Medical Evidence - an acronym always to be alert to) on and one without. TAS issue one sub or the other and generally one never knows (unless it is disclosed). It's only not disclosed if it is considered that it would be harmful to the health of the person disclosed to to disclose it.

On the AT37 form the DWP send to TAS there's a box to say whether PHME is on or not. It's all under Regulation 42 of the D&A Regs (there are similar provisions in the exemptions to the Data Protection Act). It's interesting that a panel member has the chance to overrule what appears to be a medical decision made by a medical person.

There's a classic decision about alleged Munchausen's Disease by proxy where the diagnosis was not revealed to the mother appointee, which goes into this subject in some depth. CSDLA/5/95.

This is also covered in CDLA/1347/99 and R(A) 4/89 (where an EMP saw someone standing at a window before the EMP went in the house by which point they were lying down - which was considered by the Commissioner not harmful to the _health_ of the person involved, and was factual rather than medical evidence anyway).

Theoretically, given that the DWP always issue subs themselves, if you ever get a sub issued by TAS themselves would that mean it must have been screened for PHME (assuming you were listed as rep on the GL24)? I don't think so - I think DWP issue the non-disclose sub as standard anyway and your case seems to prove this.