managers and return to work,ATOS etc

[not me]

just for a laugh
I have been off sick for about 3 months after a (non work) accident
ATOS called me about a week into my absence
couldnt make a word she was saying.so asked them to call back
never heard from them again

been handing in sick lines blah blah
so last time i was in for one of those lovely meetings
I was given veiled threats about how stages could be issued while im of etc (this will put me on Stage 1)
As i refused to come back under vague promises of getting a hand etc
now Ive called in to say I returning on X date. doctor issued a fit line for 6 hour days at first (they actually said 4,i said 6)
then the manager starts going on about how the doctor doesnt set hours of return etc,Its ATOS
then says well 6 hours would be standard for return,so we will see you on X date

so why argue? why not simply accept what I said and speak to me on return
I find their atttude hilarious
from previous run ins,they know I know the rules
they know I don't take 'sickies',only for genuine complaints. usually injuries
had they not been such dicks,I could have been back weeks ago

[demon]

tell atoswhat doc has said and they just stick to it i ripped a atos report up in front ov the manager my solicitor said they are not worth s**t

[keithposty]

tell atoswhat doc has said and they just stick to it i ripped a atos report up in front ov the manager my solicitor said they are not worth s**t

i am afraid i must disagree on the statement above

their is mow case law from employment tribunals that states

as the occupational health advisor knows what conditions the employee is liable to suffer, they can offer relevant treatments etc and will take precedance over a gp recomendation

[General Mannerheim]

tell atoswhat doc has said and they just stick to it i ripped a atos report up in front ov the manager my solicitor said they are not worth s**t

i am afraid i must disagree on the statement above

their is mow case law from employment tribunals that states

as the occupational health advisor knows what conditions the employee is liable to suffer, they can offer relevant treatments etc and will take precedance over a gp recomendation

BOLLOXS.... how can a health advisor who(an we are talking about Atossers here)who will have only in many cases have only spoken to you on a telephone or at best a face to face in a half hour session have more experience of a condition than my GP who I see on a fortnightly basis and has to monitor me closely know whats best for me.....if thats the law then the laws an ass.
Most of the clowns I've had the misfortune of dealing with at Atossers havn't even heard of my condition nevermind be able to offer relevant treatments.
I think what you mean is that an occupational health advisor will have a better(lol)understanding of how a condition `might affect a patient workwise and even then i'm sure I've seen in an employment tribunal that these health advisors are supposed to take into account any GP or specialist recommendations.

[keithposty]

please refrain from the insults if you do not know the answers

might i sugest you look up

Jones v Post Office [2001] IRLR 384

Then the disability rights commission cited the subsequent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Surrey Police v Marshall [2002] IRLR 843 commenting that it "illustrates how difficult it has become to challenge the decision of an occupational health doctor even where made purely on the basis of paperwork, without meeting the individual or seeking evidence from their specialist consultant."

Paul v. National Probation Service ([2004] IRLR 190).

i can go on and on on case law and employment tribunals where an employers own occupational health takes precedance

[liamlayor]

[*]

tell atoswhat doc has said and they just stick to it i ripped a atos report up in front ov the manager my solicitor said they are not worth s**t

i am afraid i must disagree on the statement above

their is mow case law from employment tribunals that states

as the occupational health advisor knows what conditions the employee is liable to suffer, they can offer relevant treatments etc and will take precedance over a gp recomendation

The Employment Appeals Tribunal in Jones v. Post Office does not state that the ATOS report took precedence over the GP or Consultant's opinions. What it says is that it was not up to the Tribunal to decide whose medical evidence took precedence as appears to have been the case in the Tribunal.

It also states that the Tribunal cannot make a decision regarding conflicting medical opinion when the employer did not receive the GP or Consultants evidence until the day of the Hearing as any decision the employer made must have been made on advice from ATOS in the absence of any other medical opinion at the time at which the employer took their decision to limit driving by Jones.

[keithposty]

[*]

tell atoswhat doc has said and they just stick to it i ripped a atos report up in front ov the manager my solicitor said they are not worth s**t

i am afraid i must disagree on the statement above

their is mow case law from employment tribunals that states

as the occupational health advisor knows what conditions the employee is liable to suffer, they can offer relevant treatments etc and will take precedance over a gp recomendation

The Employment Appeals Tribunal in Jones v. Post Office does not state that the ATOS report took precedence over the GP or Consultant's opinions. What it says is that it was not up to the Tribunal to decide whose medical evidence took precedence as appears to have been the case in the Tribunal.


It also states that the Tribunal cannot make a decision regarding conflicting medical opinion when the employer did not receive the GP or Consultants evidence until the day of the Hearing as any decision the employer made must have been made on advice from ATOS in the absence of any other medical opinion at the time at which the employer took their decision to limit driving by Jones.

you are correct in your assessmant

what i was trying to show was the progression of tribunals decisions in relation to occupational health providers

jones v post office was 2001

Surrey Police v Marshall [2002]

just notice how the two judgements differ by progression with each individual case and what case law is used through the different tribunals

[keithposty]

Employment Appeal Tribunal in Paul v. National Probation Service ([2004] IRLR 190).

The ET held that the OHA's risk assessment was adequate.

Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd v. Jenkins ([2007] UKEAT/0497/06).

The manager was entitled to rely on the advice of the OH physician who was better able to assess the risks of the job than the consultant psychiatrist.

[liamlayor]

Employment Appeal Tribunal in Paul v. National Probation Service ([2004] IRLR 190).

The ET held that the OHA's risk assessment was adequate.

Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd v. Jenkins ([2007] UKEAT/0497/06).

The manager was entitled to rely on the advice of the OH physician who was better able to assess the risks of the job than the consultant psychiatrist.

Yes, you are quite correct, in Paul v. National Probation Service the Appeal Tribunal held that the OH assessment was adequate but you cannot understand this, or any other similar decision, in the absence of the context of the case.

The Probation Service had contacted Mr. Paul's GP for a report on his mental health condition, his GP had rarely seen Mr. Paul and was unable to provide a comprehensive opinion on Mr. Paul's condition or on his prognosis, nor was he asked to express an opinion on Mr. Paul's suitability for the post for which he had applied.

Had the Probation Service asked Mr. Paul's consultant psychiatrist to provide his opinion, as someone who had treated Mr. Paul for his mental health problem since its onset and with a regularity and frequency which far surpassed his GP's intervention, then that report would have been given as much, if not more, weighting than that of the OH worker.

What the Paul judgement shows is that it is not only necessary to request written opinions from the most suitable authority, in this case, the consultant psychiatrist, but also, to ensure that there is an accurate risk assessment and consideration of reasonable adjustments which could be made.

That there may appear to be a trend toward accepting OH medical reports over those of the treating GP or consultant is not in question. What we do need to question though, and what the EAT is saying, is that the suitability of the source and type of advice or opinion sought, should undergo careful consideration and should be requested within the context of the individual's own needs.

[not me]

Employment Appeal Tribunal in Paul v. National Probation Service ([2004] IRLR 190).

The ET held that the OHA's risk assessment was adequate.

Heathrow Express Operating Co Ltd v. Jenkins ([2007] UKEAT/0497/06).

The manager was entitled to rely on the advice of the OH physician who was better able to assess the risks of the job than the consultant psychiatrist.

Yes, you are quite correct, in Paul v. National Probation Service the Appeal Tribunal held that the OH assessment was adequate but you cannot understand this, or any other similar decision, in the absence of the context of the case.

The Probation Service had contacted Mr. Paul's GP for a report on his mental health condition, his GP had rarely seen Mr. Paul and was unable to provide a comprehensive opinion on Mr. Paul's condition or on his prognosis, nor was he asked to express an opinion on Mr. Paul's suitability for the post for which he had applied.

Had the Probation Service asked Mr. Paul's consultant psychiatrist to provide his opinion, as someone who had treated Mr. Paul for his mental health problem since its onset and with a regularity and frequency which far surpassed his GP's intervention, then that report would have been given as much, if not more, weighting than that of the OH worker.

What the Paul judgement shows is that it is not only necessary to request written opinions from the most suitable authority, in this case, the consultant psychiatrist, but also, to ensure that there is an accurate risk assessment and consideration of reasonable adjustments which could be made.

That there may appear to be a trend toward accepting OH medical reports over those of the treating GP or consultant is not in question. What we do need to question though, and what the EAT is saying, is that the suitability of the source and type of advice or opinion sought, should undergo careful consideration and should be requested within the context of the individual's own needs.

which in my case would tbe the Ortho consultant,physio and GP who has seen and treated me over the last 3 months
not someone at ATOs who at this point hasnt even spoken to me
which raises why a manager would come out with the line from my 1st post.
Im returning to work under a reasonable worload for the business(as per his words),however he still feels the need to raise ATOS as a weapon

[keithposty]

the reasoning behind all this is if the employer in conjunction with occupational health has carried out an adaquate risk assessmant on a returned to work routine then they can surpass the employees own medical recomendations (GP)

thats how the majority of employment tribunals will see it

i quoted employment cases above to varify that

but if the risk assessmant that has been conducted is flawed and the employees injury/condition is made worse by this risk assessmant then the employee can make a claim against the employer, not the occupational health provider

the reasoning behind this is that the employer engaged the services of the occupational health provider and is ultimatley responsable for their actions

[not me]

the reasoning behind all this is if the employer in conjunction with occupational health has carried out an adaquate risk assessmant on a returned to work routine then they can surpass the employees own medical recomendations (GP)

thats how the majority of employment tribunals will see it

i quoted employment cases above to varify that

but if the risk assessmant that has been conducted is flawed and the employees injury/condition is made worse by this risk assessmant then the employee can make a claim against the employer, not the occupational health provider

the reasoning behind this is that the employer engaged the services of the occupational health provider and is ultimatley responsable for their actions

but nothing like that has been offered
I am back at work on X day,so if they are to use ATOS in that manner
then they have to sort that before my return
Instead the wish to use it as a method of undermining the GPs advice after seeing me

[keithposty]

if you have been off sick a "back to work interview" must be provided and recorded. that in its self is a risk assessmant

if the manager is not capable or does not have the knowledge to do that risk assessmant then ATOS WILL BECOME INVOLVED

thats why i keep going on about back to work interviews

managers have a legal duty of care

health and safety at work act etc etc

remember people

allways have a paper trail

managers cannot deny it then and it opens them up to litigation

[bigcol]

if you have been off sick a "back to work interview" must be provided and recorded.

I'm guessing there's some time frame for this.

Still haven't had one for my sick in November.