The decision maker is not bound in any way to endorse the findings of the examining medical practitioner, though of course s/he usually does. However I have seen more than one IB85 sent for rework where a more astute than usual DM has noticed that some of the IB 85 is inconsistent or not adequately justified. Doctors seem to cave in under this! It goes without saying that, as the papers you actually see are the disputed ones that go to appeal, it usually means that the DM has lowered the original score. I don't know how often it happens the other way round (not often enough, if you look at some of the arrant nonsense in some IB85s...)
However a more interesting question, which may be what this query is about, is whether the DM has established that there were grounds to supersede the original award of IB - which is by its nature indefinite - and remove it. This could be only on one of two grounds: that there has been a change of circumstances since the original decision (got better) or that the original decision was just plain wrong. It's vitally important to get not just the claimant's self-assessment of how his condition at the date of this decision compares with his earlier condition, but preferably also some real medical or social work evidence.
The production of a previous IB85 is usually an attempt by the DM to forestall an order from a Tribunal to produce the previous report where the claimant and his advisers suggest there has been no significant improvement. It will then be part of the Tribunal's job to find an explanation for the huge discrepancy which may be down to the level of competence of the two doctors concerned. You will no doubt have your own opinion of the competence of your local medical examiners.
If ther is no previous IB85 produced, the DM runs the risk that the Tribunal will find that the SoS has failed to show that there were grounds for removing the indefinite award. The DM is hoping to avoid this outcome.
In terms of what is happening: The doctor talks with the claimant, notes his responses and observes certain features of his behaviour (since this is clearly a mental health appeals) What he records about that is findings of fact. From that he extrapolates to produce answers to the specific questions posed by the mental health assessment. This is his professional opinion. The Decision Maker considers the doctor's report and. if satisfied with it, translates that into a score. The only thing determined by that score is whether or not the claimant is incapable of work. This is the firt-level decision, but it is not an outcome decision, which is what the claimant is concerned about. It is however the only one the Tribunal can decide.
The final part of the equation is to ensure that the claimant meets all the other criteria for the award of IB or IS on the grounds of incapacity for work, and to work out the rate of benefit. This will be worked out by a different DM once the issue of incapacity has been sorted out. The result of that is the true outcome decision, that the claimant is entitled to benefit at the rate of £x a week.
|