Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Redacting name of HCP
A colleague has just received an ESA85 assessment report in connection with a UC(LCW) Man Recon, in which the identity of the HCP has been redacted throughout.
Upon enquiring with UC, he was informed that this is now official policy across UC, the reason given being that this is because of a “data protection issue”.
Has anyone else come across this, and what are people’s views?
The expertise, training and experience of the HCP are specifically relied on by the DWP as the reasons why the report should attract weight. If the author cannot be identified, then it is difficult to understand why any credence at all should be given to their views.
The expertise, training and experience of the HCP are specifically relied on by the DWP as the reasons why the report should attract weight. If the author cannot be identified, then it is difficult to understand why any credence at all should be given to their views.
Precisely. It seems a somewhat perverse policy.
Not to mention that a WCA must be carried out by a ‘registered’ dr, nurse, OT or physio… How do we know an assessor is sufficiently qualified to perform the WCA if we do not know their name?
Case law seems to suggest that the claimant is entitled to know the name of the assessor. See CE/2379/2015, CE/62/2016. Though in the latter, Judge Hemingway at para 37 states “security concerns may point to that not being so in a particular case”. I wonder if this might be one such case, despite what the claimant might have been told by the call centre?
Art 6.
Anonymous expert witness.
https://www.hcpts-uk.org/hearings/search/Search/
search under HCP profession
https://www.nmc.org.uk/concerns-nurses-midwives/hearings/hearings-sanctions/hearings-april-2019/
[ Edited: 5 Apr 2019 at 02:01 pm by John Birks ]https://www.hcpts-uk.org/hearings/search/Search/
search under HCP profession
https://www.nmc.org.uk/concerns-nurses-midwives/hearings/hearings-sanctions/hearings-april-2019/
Yes. We already use this. But it’s of limited use if we don’t know the name of the HCP.
That would form part of the art 6 argument
Reading Article 6, my interpretation is that an individual’s name could be redacted, but only on an individual case basis (rather than as a blanket policy), and only if DWP could prove a threat to that individual should their identity be revealed.
I apologise if I’m being slow (it is Friday!) but Article 6 of what? And what argument would someone be advancing in relation to it?
I apologise if I’m being slow (it is Friday!) but Article 6 of what? And what argument would someone be advancing in relation to it?
Article 6 of GDPR. The argument being on the right of an appellant (and Tribunal) to know the identity of the HCP conducting a WCA.
Interesting
especially as we have just received a client’s DWP records, including, inter alia, ESA medical reports - and HCP’s names (there are several) not redacted.
Methinks the DWP are protesting too much (and, once again, showing that they fail to understand data protection, and have failed to notice the exception for litigation, which a tribunal is)
I apologise if I’m being slow (it is Friday!) but Article 6 of what? And what argument would someone be advancing in relation to it?
Sorry
The Human Rights Act
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
i.e. to examine or have examined witnesses against
The DWP are relying on expert witness testimony - the UC85 - you can’t corroborate the witness as a Qualified HCP if they’re hiding behind anonymity.
Obvs if it says John Smith or Susan Brown it’s a little harder to locate than say Sage Moonblood or similar.
Apols to Sage if there is such an HCP.
Thank you, I’m following along now 😊
I got my first one today, with typical DWP efficiency the HCP’s name has been covered with black felt tip every at least once on each of 26 pages , but they apparently neglected to check whether it could still be read through the ink—it can be…
Particularly frustrating in this case because I want to use the report to support my client’s case for PIP….
[ Edited: 10 Apr 2019 at 03:05 pm by Paul_Moorhouse ]
I got my first one today, with typical DWP efficiency the HCP’s name has been covered with black felt tip every at least once on each of 26 pages , but they apparently neglected to check whether it could still be read through the ink—it can be…
Particularly frustrating in this case because I want to use the report to support my client’s case for PIP….
well you still could - put it in and you could even ask the tribunal to order them to give the name if it got that far.