Can of worms about to be opened... We have a long term employee who has been off work since August 2013 following an accident at work. The operative fell from a height of approximately 2.5m and suffered an injury to his lower back, which has resulted in him being off work since. There was an internal accident investigation undertaken which flagged up a number of findings and preventative actions and there is currently an on-going injury claim being pursued by the IP, all of which is a side issue to this thread. This afternoon, we have been informed personally by the IP that he has been assessed by Atos and they have informed him that he is fit for a return to work. His GP has stated otherwise however. The IP himself, his union representative and our company are all in agreement with the opinion of the GP, that he is not fit at present to return and believe that the opinion of the GP should take precedence in this matter. Atos are saying that as he has been deemed fit for work, his benefit payments will therefore be cut and that it is down to our company to find the IP a work function that he is able to undertake. The IP is a plumber to trade. My opinion and concern is that since the GP has clearly stated that the IP is not deemed fit for a return to work, if we were to take the IP back on and give him some "light" duties --- if there is such a thing as light duties in the construction industry --- and he injures himself further, as well as causing the IP more distress, there will be implications on us as company for bringing the operative back against the advice of his GP. To complicate issues further, the Union have stated that further to the assessment by Atos, if our company cannot offer alternative duties, then we will be in a position where will be required to make the IP redundant. Again, all of which has implications for the current on-going claim proceedings. Has anyone had any similar experiences of this and if so, I'd be curious to know the outcome. Our HR Manager is currently investigating this also, but I know the IOSH forum is normally a good place to start with asking for advice. Cheers for reading, D.

ATOS has undertaken the reururn to work based on the so called disability type criteria. If you have access to a "pukka" Occupational Health service i.e. Occupational Health Physician yourself, that is likely to carry more weight than ATOS or GP. Last, but not least, it is not ATOS or the GP, but your employer liability insurer that is going to pay the claim etc. so they should have some input. Personally, I would go the Occupational Health physician route.

I think that just referring this to an occupational physician for an opinion might not be the best approach as they will have only third hand information on which to respond, unless the IP is willing to see the OP. I would start by going back to Atos and ask them to provide a written statement as to what type of work they consider him fit to carry out. This places the ball firmly in their court. It also give you something that you can work on, i.e. could you find him something that is commensurate with what Atos are saying. Then consult an occupational physician and obtain their view based on the Atos statement and your assessment of what you could find him. Chris

The ATOS decision is for benefit purposes. The doctor/s are for fitness. Most people believe that atos employ highly trained medical doctors/consultants. Not so. Most decisions are based on the paperwork with no examinations at all. The final decision is from a ¨decision maker¨ at the DfWP, who has no medical training, and probably not much training in anything. It is a ¨tick-the-box¨ assessment. To be deemed fit to work, the claimant is assessed on various abilities. The points target for continued benefit is 15, lower and you are fit, higher and you are not. Interestingly, no points are awarded for L4/L5 disc herniation leading to considerable leg pain and control problems, while 6 points can be awarded for hearing problems! L4/L5 barely affects mobility, but bad hearing affects risk. You work it out. Personally, if you base YOUR decision to allow a return to work on the ATOS decision of fitness, you deserve what will come your way. I suggest you arrange to have the employee assessed privately by qualified medical doctors/consultants. Either way, it will probably cost you.

Thanks for all the valuable input so far. The company does have access to two separate Occupational Health sources, one via an external provider whom we use on a frequent basis and another one via our insurers as part of our policy.

Quite. Their remit is to decide whether a person is fit for any work, not necessarily their trade. That persons employer has to decide whether that person is fit to return to their employed position, or another available position. You will note the problem immediately. As far as I can see, professional advice is needed to decide if that employee is medically fit for the work you have available for him/her. The ATOS decision is largely irrelevant to that end. And the employer cannot request anything from ATOS/DWP, only the assessed party.

ATOS had their role until recently, and that was operating for DWP to get people off the benefit system and out of payments. The way I see this issue is the employee cannot return to his work as a plumber but there are other types of work he can do. Take the Tardis back to 1988 when I was a firefighter and injured during a call and my injuries were preventing me returning to my job. I was off injured for almost two years and then retired on injury pension, this despite my protests, I wanted to go back as firefighter but that was not allowed by the medical team for the Brigade. I soon got myself a job as Fire Prevention Officer in a factory and have worked ever since, but not operationally as a firefighter. The standard payout for a claim such as mine was £75.K at the time, I was awarded a very small compensation because I worked very quickly after being retired. No loss of earnings. Now back to the plumber who I am sure could find some employment but not that of an active plumber in the construction sector. ATOS will be correct when they say he is fit for work because he is fit for work, however not for the activities of a plumber. ATOS only need to get his benefit payments stopped and it looks like that is what is happening. Returning to his work as a plumber will be down to the GP, and it appears he has already made that opinion. Your plumber does not have to return to work if his GP says he is unfit, but he will not receive the benefits he was from DWP. Two different opinions, one for the DWP, the other for the NHS. That is my opinion of this case and while I am not calling him a benefit scrounger perhaps it is time he accepted his condition will not improve enough to return to plumbing and to look for something else, just like I had to do, then perhaps over the course of time he may find he is fit enough to be a plumber once again. By the way is he in receipt of sick pay from his employer?

I suggest ALL keep a copy of this information as you will never know when it is needed

A different route the employee could take is applying for PIP the benefit for disabled. If he has walking difficulties he may qualify for the benefit, search for the PIP website and follow the guidance to applying. Initial telephone sift then the application form sent out. Only takes about three months from application to decision. This is different to the back to work medicals. If the application fails then that could go against him in his compensation claim but of it goes for him ???????????????

Walker - the insurers will be required to reimbure the taxpayers via the compensation recovery unit once the claim is decided. As for dragging their heels, there is a reason. How would you feel as the claimant if the insurer made a quick offer to settle (full and final) based on say a 1 year recovery. He would, by the sounds of it, be short changed in this situation. As it stands now, the insurers will be looking at the difference between his pre-accident earning level and whatever role he is capable of in the future, plus a Smith and Manchester award for disadvantage on the open labour market. The delay has to be there to see how the medical situation pans out.

Some might disagree and say she was never fit to work, and others may disagree to disagree ha ha Is it still Friday - OMG I do hope so :-)