There's an entry in the Briefcase section re CSIB/69/2003, which I think needs to be corrected as it could lead to misunderstanding of the Commissioner's decision. The entry contains the following statement: "The Commissioner ... stated that although the length of an interview and examination is not relevant in itself, it may be relevant as an indicator that the examination was not properly conducted."

Strictly speaking , the Commissioner said the length of the interview and examination was "not determinative, but surely it may be relevant as an indicator that the examination was not properly conducted." (Para. 21). She also goes further by saying "I do question moreover, how an adequate history sufficient to answer the necessary relevant points could routinely be taken in ten minutes" (Para. 23).

I hope that doesn't sound pedantic, but I think there's a world of difference between "not determinative" and "not relevant."

hi steven -

thanks for that .... i'll pass it on to lasa's specialist support project who write the summaries and we'll look at it today

thanks again - shawn

Steven,

Thanks for your comments. I've tried to take them on board and have amended the briefcase summary of CSIB/69/03.

Although in her decision, Commissioner Parker does indicate that the length of time of a medical examination may be relevant as an indicator that the examination was not properly conducted, she does not uphold the appeal on that basis:

"… I would need medical input before I felt safe in drawing an inference in the present case that ten minutes could not be long enough for the medical adviser to collect sufficient evidence." (Para 23).

However, where the length of examination is a concern, perhaps her overall comments on the issue could be usefully applied when representing at a hearing, by requesting the tribunal's medical member address this.

Commissioner Parker upholds the appeal on the basis of the overall lack of thoroughness and inconsistency, and general inadequacy of the EMP's medical report itself.

I do feel that the method of analysis she demonstrates could also be usefully adopted by advisers seeking to assist client's with incapacity appeals.

Thanks Ken. Your amended summary has eliminated any possible misunderstanding. Very much appreciated.