Disability

[Openlaw15]

Re: Disability

I didn't stop taking my medication. In actual fact I was proving to be treatment resistant, they kept increasing the dose until I was on the maximum, eventually referring me to a psychiatrist as I just wasn't responding to the medication. The psychiatrist recommending changing my medication in line with IBM recommendations."

This is about controlling the effect of a medical condition. The tribunal is there to ascertain if the person (employee) before them has a disability to make a claim for disability discrimination. Perhaps the tribunal is alluding that if you control the symptoms of your mental health problems by taking the relevant prescribed medication the effect would reduce what may have been a mental health disability. The tribunal or the opponent is not there, or should not be there, to ask you questions about whether you have taken your medication at the due times. I think this is a point of law argument that you have to appeal to the higher tribunal, in that the tribunal has misunderstood its role as taking medication is irrelevant to whether a person has a disability even if the taking of the medication would otherwise reduce its effect to amount to a mental health 'disability.'

"I was eventually referred to undertake Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for PTSD symptoms, which was when I began to respond to treatment - the deduced effect didn't come into the equation until then, by which time I had been dismissed. This is what confuses me, there was no deduced effect so maybe this was my error but my GP referred me to the psychiatrist as there was no deduced effect by his reasoning as I wasn't responding to medication ...that is why I am so confused.

I was diagnosed with moderate depression ICD10 Code F32.1 and social anxiety if that helps.

Thank you for all your help, it really is appreciated.

Diagnosed, you say. So, you have a medical report?

[angelicangel]

Re: Disability

Thank you openlaw. I need to digest what you say, I have to run responses over and over in my head until the penny drops and it makes sense to me, it's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle for me at the moment.

The diagnosis was in the psychiatrist's report, which was present at the Tribunal ...exact wording is depression (ICD 10 Code F32.1) in the setting of social adversity.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Disability

Thank you openlaw. I need to digest what you say, I have to run responses over and over in my head until the penny drops and it makes sense to me, it's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle for me at the moment.

The diagnosis was in the psychiatrist's report, which was present at the Tribunal ...exact wording is depression (ICD 10 Code F32.1) in the setting of social adversity.

Angelicangelam what am saying is that the tribunal/ and respondent enquiring whether a person (ie you) has taken their medication as prescribed is irrelevant line of questioning. Even if the prescription and or taking of the medicine reduced your the effect of your mental health problems, ie depression or social anxiety, it does not mean you do not have a disability overall it just means that what may have been a disability has been reduced, so no claim, which is grossly unfair. If it were a court room, a lawyer would say 'I object your honour', as this is an irrelevant line of questioning to the matters at hand before us.' The central question is 'does angelicangelam have a 'disability' and all frames of reference should be closely directed to this theme. It is instead reducing your claim based on irrelevant details. I'll put it another way, if the tribunal believe that the dosage or frequent or infrequent use of medication either causes or does not cause a disability is effectively an unfair line of questioning and an unfair and prejudiced hearing.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Disability

The old requirement that, for the purpose of establishing disability, a mental health condition must be 'clinically well recognised' or apppear on a list was repealed in 2005.
Since then mental impairments have been treated in exactly the same way as physical impairments.

Openlaw, could you explain what you think is 'not right' in post#9.

You state "So, if you provide evidence that, if you didn't take your medication, your 'impairment' would have a substantial adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities = you have a disability.

Rule of thumb; 1) use lawyer; 2), or think like a lawyer if you don't have one; 3) think objectively...refer to the medical professional's statement throughout if the medical professional is not being called as a witness; 4) only use 'I' when after you have cited the medical professional (ie psychiatrist's comments) to apply the medical condition, using the ICD 10/ DSM equivalent to your facts; 5) do not act emotionally.

Example ICD at chapter X, paragraph Y, states mental health as the following..... Psychiatrist X states the following.... My facts.. the following. Every disability claim you make do it with authority 1) ICD; 2) psychiatrist's statement; 3) apply these to your facts.

Mental health is a specialist area and the OP is not deemed qualified to discuss her mental health problems as though it were a disability, where the relevant professional is the psychiatrist. This reflect medical negligence/ tort law. So because she is not qualified to comment on her condition the tribunal are being very critical of her claims. So, the op should have said 'the medical expert'....not I think....also refer to the professional.

[angelicangel]

Re: Disability

Openlaw I did this in my closing submissions, with the help of legal advice.

The judge at the ET asked me one question when reading the psychiatrist's report - if I had advised the psychiatrist that I was in the process of an employment tribunal claim. I had and it was even written in the report. I didn't understand how this was relevant to my claim and it confused me as to whether there was some kind of insinuation there but I had to put my faith in the judicial system.

As the Respondent's solicitor, at no time, questioned me on the four stage test for claiming disability, how can a finding me made purely on the fact I had at no time ceased my medication ....it has confused me no end.

[angelicangel]

Re: Disability

This is exactly their reasoning ' In assessing whether the Claimant is disabled, it’s necessary to consider what she was like without the benefit of the effects of any medication that she was being prescribed (Schedule 1 s5(1) Equality Act 2010) - assuming this applied without any reference to the medical evidence, it would appear'.

This appears to be in contradiction to what you are saying openlaw if I understand right.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Disability

This is exactly their reasoning ' In assessing whether the Claimant is disabled, it’s necessary to consider what she was like without the benefit of the effects of any medication that she was being prescribed (Schedule 1 s5(1) Equality Act 2010) - assuming this applied without any reference to the medical evidence, it would appear'.

This appears to be in contradiction to what you are saying openlaw if I understand right.

The law in Sched 1, paragraph 5 basically says the person may have an disability if they were prescribed certain medication to reduce the mental health problem's effects. For instance, if without medication the person still has the problems it may be a mental health disability. So, they can ask it seems whether you have been prescribed medication for your mental health problems. So apparently they can also ask what medication. However, the dosage and frequent or infrequent use is still a grey area. However they still have to consider the extent of disability, its effects on you - so they cannot waste the whole day going over the medication. What does entire letter from the tribunal's decision state word for word.

[angelicangel]

Re: Disability

Thank you Openlaw for your patience. I am worried about posting extracts on here, a public forum. I don't know the etiquette of using the forum, can I possibly e-mail this to you and happy for you to respond on the forum?