Advise on assessment from a member
Jan 31, 2020 10:43:52 GMT 7
itsmylife08, mspurple, and 3 more like this
Post by bear on Jan 31, 2020 10:43:52 GMT 7
Hi Banjo,
Centrelink can insist as much as it likes that their assessors over-ride a members Doctor, buit this ISNT the case mate.
Having worked for Centrelink I have seen both sides of the coin, and having a fair degree of legal experience (including having been right through the military compensation / rehabilitation system twice, I can confidently state this:
Centrelink often has inappropriate people conducting JCA's - ie a psychologist for a person with physical injuries and so on.
Lets jump to the law for a moment. No legal practitioner can provide a legal statement that over-rides a more senior practitioner in the eyes of the law.
Example: In the case of an inured joint - reports are submitted to a Tribunal or Magistrate for a decision to be made in respect of the facts of a persons impairment - a physio says A, a GP says B, and an orthopaedic surgeon says C. The Court/Tribunal MUST accept the opinion in the following order - C; B; A - and god forbid some psychologist is in that mix they will be laughed out of the hearing.
Of course, in the case of a genuine Psychological impairment, I would suggest that Psychologist A, GP B, and Psychiatrist C - would give the same C, B, A precedence to weight of evidence.
SO - please advise your members - in the even that a member is inappropriately assessed (ie. non relevant quals of assessor) and that assessment is negative to the member, but at odds with the GP and other medical evidence at hand, then IMMEDIATELY file for a REVIEW with the ODM (original decision maker) - who 99.9% of the time will uphold their own decision as they are too stupid to see the error of their own ways (and mostly are towing the line to keep the DSP lines as thin as possible).
Then, if the decision is upheld, as expected, submit a WRITTEN request for review to the ARO (authorised review officer) with a document highlighting your facts of rebuttal, i.e. the medical evidence to the contrary - and ALSO, highlight that the assessor has NO LEGAL STANDING in opposition to your GP/Specialist and so on AND that (the member) will, if unsuccessfull at ARO, proceed directly and without delay to the SSAT - AND WILL SOLICIT THE SERVICES OF THE "WELFARE RIGHTS SERVICE" to represent them at that matter - and of course, the moment its heading to ARO, they should start talking with Welfare Rights as they are very much prepared to take up such a fight but cannot do so before SSAT stage.
Ordinarily, if you PUT GOOD COUNTER EVIDENCE AND REASONING to the ARO you stand a good chance of overturning the assessment (as I did - actually it triggered another assessement by an appropriately qualified assessor who was made intimately aware of the facts well supported by scans/speciallist reports/gp reports and that those opinioins far exceeded his own - he had to tow the line on opinion or he knew he had more paperwork to do if appealed again.. I made sure he knew that!).
Most people fail at the ARO because they only ask for a review.. (which is only desk based/file based) they dont actually state the points of challenge and reinforce the facts they are relying on. If you dont lay out the deficiencies your chances of success at ARO plummet by 90%+ so members SHOULD PUT EFFORT into this stage.
So..when Centrelink says their assessors reports take precedence.. it is the greatest bluff of hot wind and bullshit that was ever put made but.. they are hoping that claimants will simply give up and go away, the same as in the Military Compensation system.
So.. DSP OVERSEAS MEMBERS - get smart, and win!
Cheers and good work mate,
Centrelink can insist as much as it likes that their assessors over-ride a members Doctor, buit this ISNT the case mate.
Having worked for Centrelink I have seen both sides of the coin, and having a fair degree of legal experience (including having been right through the military compensation / rehabilitation system twice, I can confidently state this:
Centrelink often has inappropriate people conducting JCA's - ie a psychologist for a person with physical injuries and so on.
Lets jump to the law for a moment. No legal practitioner can provide a legal statement that over-rides a more senior practitioner in the eyes of the law.
Example: In the case of an inured joint - reports are submitted to a Tribunal or Magistrate for a decision to be made in respect of the facts of a persons impairment - a physio says A, a GP says B, and an orthopaedic surgeon says C. The Court/Tribunal MUST accept the opinion in the following order - C; B; A - and god forbid some psychologist is in that mix they will be laughed out of the hearing.
Of course, in the case of a genuine Psychological impairment, I would suggest that Psychologist A, GP B, and Psychiatrist C - would give the same C, B, A precedence to weight of evidence.
SO - please advise your members - in the even that a member is inappropriately assessed (ie. non relevant quals of assessor) and that assessment is negative to the member, but at odds with the GP and other medical evidence at hand, then IMMEDIATELY file for a REVIEW with the ODM (original decision maker) - who 99.9% of the time will uphold their own decision as they are too stupid to see the error of their own ways (and mostly are towing the line to keep the DSP lines as thin as possible).
Then, if the decision is upheld, as expected, submit a WRITTEN request for review to the ARO (authorised review officer) with a document highlighting your facts of rebuttal, i.e. the medical evidence to the contrary - and ALSO, highlight that the assessor has NO LEGAL STANDING in opposition to your GP/Specialist and so on AND that (the member) will, if unsuccessfull at ARO, proceed directly and without delay to the SSAT - AND WILL SOLICIT THE SERVICES OF THE "WELFARE RIGHTS SERVICE" to represent them at that matter - and of course, the moment its heading to ARO, they should start talking with Welfare Rights as they are very much prepared to take up such a fight but cannot do so before SSAT stage.
Ordinarily, if you PUT GOOD COUNTER EVIDENCE AND REASONING to the ARO you stand a good chance of overturning the assessment (as I did - actually it triggered another assessement by an appropriately qualified assessor who was made intimately aware of the facts well supported by scans/speciallist reports/gp reports and that those opinioins far exceeded his own - he had to tow the line on opinion or he knew he had more paperwork to do if appealed again.. I made sure he knew that!).
Most people fail at the ARO because they only ask for a review.. (which is only desk based/file based) they dont actually state the points of challenge and reinforce the facts they are relying on. If you dont lay out the deficiencies your chances of success at ARO plummet by 90%+ so members SHOULD PUT EFFORT into this stage.
So..when Centrelink says their assessors reports take precedence.. it is the greatest bluff of hot wind and bullshit that was ever put made but.. they are hoping that claimants will simply give up and go away, the same as in the Military Compensation system.
So.. DSP OVERSEAS MEMBERS - get smart, and win!
Cheers and good work mate,