Posted By Paul Craythorne David, Tough one for you. It comes down to that old cherry risk assessment. As part of assessing the risk of letting this individual drive an FLT within your workplace you will take into account various factors only one of which will be the views of medical experts. You would be wise to take the expert opinion of your insurers also as they are a stakeholder in your organisation. Good luck. Regards, Paul Craythorne

Posted By Mike Miller Hi David Having been involved in a disability discrimination tribunal last year, I can say that conflicting medical evidence is quite the norm. We had in our possession one GP medical report & two independent medical assessments carried out by consultant medical experts who were both registered expert witnesses. The reality was that there were three different medical opinions that were so conflicting; you could be forgiven for thinking that we had received someone else's report on one of them. If I were you I would take the safe option and adopt a company stance. What would happen to the company if an accident occurred? Could it be argued that it was 'reasonably foreseeable? Why tempt fate? I realise that there may be a DDA slant on your decision but thats a risk you may have to take. Say no and stick with it! Mike

Posted By Robert Wise I guess GPs and Psychiatric Consultants have a different take and historical experience of their patient. The GP would probably have a fuller understadning of the patients background and family history whereas the psychiatrist would have became more involved at the 'crisis' stage of the onset of Schizophrenia and hence their conflicting responses. The GP is possible looking for a social angle ie protection of everyone whereas the consultant from his patient's integration angle - get him/her back into the workplace. The GP would equally be aware of the individuals consistecy and attitude towards taking his/her medication as the patient may not see the consultant for weeks at a time. A difficult one. Personally I feel that beyond the standard risk assessments that you would do with anyone operating a forklift, it would be difficult to gather enough information on the individual (and possibly gain enough understanding of the individual, to do a full assessment - after all, the medical profession are divided) I would initially wait for a letter from the consultant confiming that he agrees that operating a forklift is OK and establish whether there is any restrictions. I would then send both letters Consultants and GPs to the insurers and let their medical team look over the information and let them decide. I would also learn more about Schizophrenia and identify signs of behaviour when, say medication is not being taken for example. Considering the DDA, you can't place any personal perspective or judgements, however, the person in charge of Health & Safety on site is more than aware, above and beyond, the medical professions the risks that are associated with operating the forklift and the environment and the safety of everyone needs to be taken into account. However, if this person did not disclose that he was Schizophrenic, may he be operating a forklift now with no concern over his competence to do so? A difficult one. I am sure the insurers will deliberate for a long time over. However, if I had someone with any medical condition which I felt could serious affect the safety of others, I would atleast raise my concerns with the individual highlighting the responsibility of the postition and source a way so that the individaul can let me know, if at any time, it wouldn't be appropriate for them to operate the forklift.

Posted By Neil Pearson If it's that finely balanced surely you have to say no? But advice from an occupational health practitioner would hold water in court.

Posted By Stuart Nagle David. Yes... an awkward one for you... I was not aware that Schizophrenia that is perfectly treatable condition with medication has any bearing on a persons ability to drive a FLT, unlike say epilepsy which even with medication can sometimes not prevent blackouts (my wife is epileptic). whilst I am not a doctor, I always thought that Schizophrenics were people with problems in respect of their understanding and interpretation of their place in the world, sometimes subject to bouts of depression and occassionally unusual and unpatterned behaviour.... as opposed to paranoid Schizophrenics who can for example imagine that persons or things conspire against them and without medication have often reacted violently when faced with certain delusional situations that they perceive to be true in their minds. If I had a choice, I think I would take the medical consultants view, after all, they are not the top experts in their field for nothing... Best of luck.... Stuart

Posted By Hilary Charlton I would discuss both reports with your insurance company when you receive them. Only they can confirm whether they will allow this person to work on site. I do not think that this should be your decision - you are an H&S advisor not a medical practitioner. The insurance company will consult with their medical advisors and come back with a definite yes or no as to whether you will be covered by insurance or not. If you are not covered then obviously he cannot work, if you are then the responsibility lies with the insurance company. Hilary

Posted By Ron Hunter Protracted wrangling over this issue may well be to the detriment of your (already vulnerable) client's specific mental health. In this regard I respect the GP who has very quickly made a decision. I would stick with that.

Posted By Rob Malcolm The GP everytime for me Rob Malcolm

Posted By David J Bristow Many thanks for all the responses to this thread. As Health and Safety Advisors we should know our limitations and this is why in this instance I asked for your thoughts and have sought other “expert” advice. The company that wishes to take this person on placement, as a forklift driver is to seek clarification from his insurance companies medical department, however, if it were left up to me then I would always err on the side of caution (I could live with that decision). Interestingly one respondent made reference to the DDA, whilst I agree that all Health and Safety Advisors have to bear in mind this act, I do believe that the MHSW Regs take preference in that the capabilities of a person must be taken into account, I think that this overrides the DDA act (almost another title for a new tread). Thanks once again Regards David B