Re;Doctor or Occupational health assessor.

[royal male]

At their peril though, the DWP confirms that an employer is not bound to follow a G.P.'s suggestion in the fit note.

However ignoring a G.P.'s recommendations altogether (or failing fully to cosider these) could well lead to claims for constructive/and or unfair dismissal, personal injury and disability discrimination.

Employers should therefore implement procedures to ensure that fit notes are acted upon, including appropriate consultation between employer and employee.

[Patrick henry]

Thanks again for the replies,however my doctor declared it as a "legal document" when i ask his advice.inferring it trumps an employers say.

[Patrick henry]

I feel disregarded in this anomaly.

[BoltonPostie]

One of the latest cases with this sort of thing.
20.It is accepted by the claimant that the respondent(RM) obtained reports from ATOS and followed the recommendations made in those reports.The respondent relied on the reports from ATOS,despite what the claimant was telling them about his capabilities.The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that the ATOS personnel regularly failed to understand his condition and on occasion referred it to hypertension or high blood pressure,a different and much less serious condition.]The Tribunal finds the respondent did not consult with the claimant's specialist consultant or with the claimant himself about his capabilities or about a possible permanent solution which would enable the claimant to stay at work,nor did the respondent consider any other alternatives.

From S Williamson V Royal Mail in the news section on here.
Seems pretty damning to me if Royal Mail want to be arsewipes and force the issue.

[REDLETTER]

One of the latest cases with this sort of thing.
20.It is accepted by the claimant that the respondent(RM) obtained reports from ATOS and followed the recommendations made in those reports.The respondent relied on the reports from ATOS,despite what the claimant was telling them about his capabilities.The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that the ATOS personnel regularly failed to understand his condition and on occasion referred it to hypertension or high blood pressure,a different and much less serious condition.]The Tribunal finds the respondent did not consult with the claimant's specialist consultant or with the claimant himself about his capabilities or about a possible permanent solution which would enable the claimant to stay at work,nor did the respondent consider any other alternatives.

From S Williamson V Royal Mail in the news section on here.
Seems pretty damning to me if Royal Mail want to be arsewipes and force the issue.

The wording is very important.

Specialist Consultant rather than GP, meaning a General Practitioner, RM normally use a "Specialist" mostly those that specialise in back to work

There are of course good and bad in this profession too. I got a bad one

The failure to ask the respondent is rather unusual as this is normally covered in The ATOS assessments, via the phone or face to face. So big no no by RM on that point!

[General Mannerheim]

If an employee's contract says payment for sickness absence is conditional on management being satisfied the sickness absence is genuine,it is for the employer to make the decision as long as it is in good faith and nor perverse.The employer cannot just decide the absence is not genuine without any specific evidence to that effect and merely because the employer's occupational health service disagrees with the employers GPas to when the employee will be fit to return. Scottish Courage V Guthrie.