Unable to claim ESA if you contribute to your medical condition?

[abc123def]

What do you make of this?

[tomtom256]

Sounds disguting but in what context are they saying she has contributed?

 

Seems to be more to this than just the letter.

 

I thought cancer patients had automatic entitlement whilst under going treatment.

[antone]

Sounds disguting but in what context are they saying she has contributed?

 

Seems to be more to this than just the letter.

 

I thought cancer patients had automatic entitlement whilst under going treatment.

 

Only if they are undergoing or recovering from a course of radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Other treatments for cancer are not covered by this rule.

 

As to the letter, it's computer generated and in itself doesn't say anything. It could even be that a processor entered the wrong code on the system. So you're right - there's more to this than meets the eye. What it is, I don't know.

[Nystagmite]

How can DWP / ATOS prove that someone contributed to their own disability? Not everyone with lung cancer has it because they smoked, for example.

[antone]

How can DWP / ATOS prove that someone contributed to their own disability? Not everyone with lung cancer has it because they smoked, for example.

 

That rule shouldn't even be applied to a smoker who gets lung cancer. It's more intended for, as an example, a person working with heavy machinery who ignores safety procedures and gets injured.

[estellyn]

Only if they are undergoing or recovering from a course of radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Other treatments for cancer are not covered by this rule.

 

As to the letter, it's computer generated and in itself doesn't say anything. It could even be that a processor entered the wrong code on the system. So you're right - there's more to this than meets the eye. What it is, I don't know.

 

 

 

Yes, you're right, a classic case of processor error - ticked the wrong box.

[romulusandremus]

Yes, you're right, a classic case of processor error - ticked the wrong box.

 

That would suggest that that reason to deny a benefit actually exists but has maybe been used incorrectly in this case.

 

 

I can't think of any reason for that to be thought of by the DWP. As someone said that it could be used if you took unnecessary risks in your job or social life that led to an illness/accident etc. What about skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing, what about putting yourself at risk on a Friday night and having an argument with someone that decides to end the argument with a knife or a gun?

Would those be classed as being self inflicted?

 

 

That sentence has no place in benefit regulations. You might as well say that liver damage caused by alcohol is self inflicted.

[estellyn]

That would suggest that that reason to deny a benefit actually exists but has maybe been used incorrectly in this case.

 

 

I can't think of any reason for that to be thought of by the DWP. As someone said that it could be used if you took unnecessary risks in your job or social life that led to an illness/accident etc. What about skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing, what about putting yourself at risk on a Friday night and having an argument with someone that decides to end the argument with a knife or a gun?

Would those be classed as being self inflicted?

 

 

That sentence has no place in benefit regulations. You might as well say that liver damage caused by alcohol is self inflicted.

 

 

My understanding is that this reason is rarely used, but might be for someone who refuses medication without good cause - for instance refuses pain relief that would allow them to work.

 

 

The letter itself, reading between the lines, appears to refer to a sanction.

[antone]

My understanding is that this reason is rarely used, but might be for someone who refuses medication without good cause - for instance refuses pain relief that would allow them to work.

 

 

The letter itself, reading between the lines, appears to refer to a sanction.

 

Yes, that's pretty much it. Refusing treatment is probably the main reason it would be used. I guess being injured in the course of committing a crime might also count. In several years of ESA processing, I never once saw that rule applied.

[reallymadwoman]

I have heard of a case where someone was refused IB because they went on a skiing holiday whilst recovering from pneumonia and had a relapse.

[Fuzzgin]

That actually scares me as I have sleep apnoea for which I have only ever been offered CPAP which I could not cope with. It made me worse. IfI ever needed benefits (theoretically as I have several conditions but am working at the moment) could I be refused for not taking treatment for which the effects were worse than the illness?

[antone]

That actually scares me as I have sleep apnoea for which I have only ever been offered CPAP which I could not cope with. It made me worse. IfI ever needed benefits (theoretically as I have several conditions but am working at the moment) could I be refused for not taking treatment for which the effects were worse than the illness?

 

Probably not. As I mentioned upthread, it's not a rule that's commonly applied and simply finding a treatment with unacceptable side effects won't trigger it.

[Fuzzgin]

That's a relief! I was panicking about someone with no medical training being able to make a decision that could affect lots of people who for whatever reason find they can't tolerate a treatment. Thanks for putting my mind at rest.