demeaning treatment during occupational health check

aneenbelle

Hi all,

I recently visited my company's doctor for an occupational health check after being off work for a term (this was not my choice but a specialist's recommendation and my company's decision). I'm suffering with a physical issue which had me in pain when I typed (I'm better now).

I went to the GP's office, he read an email sent to him by HR, thereafter I felt I was treated with bias and irony. I was interrogated about the many days I missed work and whether I was paid for all of them. He then asked me to describe what had happened and repeated almost everything I said in a questioning manner as if to check if I'm lying. He admitted he is not a specialist and went on to ask me to do an air typing motion and compared this to typing on a keyboard. He blamed me for the delay between doing necessary tests and seeing a specialist even thought this is not up to me. He even went as far as to say that I may have a psychological issue.

I've seen my own doctor, specialist, done tests and got treatment for my condition through various professionals over the past months to get better and needless to say I have been very upset about this visit and the demeaning treatment I was put through by a so called doctor. I don't want to highlight this issue with my company because I don't want to seem as if I'm saying these things because I'm afraid of what his report may say.

I'm thinking of putting through a complaint to the doctor's office and medical council as I don't think anyone should be treated like this when they are going to see a doctor.

Any thoughts on this?

gandalf

Are you taking action against your company because of this health issue?

From reading your experience I would say his treatment of you was probably tempered by the contents of the email from HR. Coupled with the fact that they are paying his bill it could account for his manner.

Personally I would be more worried about what HR said to him to facilitate this line of investigation with you and are HR talking about you in this way internally in the company to your managers?

Mr. Loverman

I think you're wasting your time.

You'd be better off focusing on improving your relationship with your boss and improving your work.

Good luck.

odyssey06

I find it surprising in 2014 that a medical professional conducting occupational health checks wouldn't have a spare keyboard for such tests but...
I think you would be better off saving your ammo for what might be coming from your HR department. If you make a complaint, the onus on you will be to prove it and 'do the running'. That could be a stressful experience so I would think carefully about embarking on such a course of action.

It's easier to play 'defence' against any possible action from HR - start logging everything on a timeline, make sure you have documentary evidence of specialist recommendations, communications from the company.
If you have the sole copy of a document\communication, make a copy of it and store it in a safe place. Do not rely on access to emails or files stored on a company network etc.
e.g. you may need to be able to justify your statement: "the delay between doing necessary tests and seeing a specialist even thought this is not up to me". Think about how you would go about backing that up to a third party. Please don't think I am casting doubts on your story, merely that it's possible you may find yourself in a position down the line where others may do so.

I am trying to bear in mind here one of the principles of Boards:
"If you find yourself in a position where you might need professional advice, please seek it from the right places."

It's possible that you are approaching that position, and if you do seek professional advice, better to come along prepared with that documentary material.

Stheno

Many years ago I suffered from work related stress to the extent that it ended in referrals to the company doctor (who in this case agreed with me, and two others with the same condition) etc etc.

It finally ended when HR tried to move it forward and I put in a FOI request to see all of the information they had in their files relating to me.

The matter was quietly dropped.

Faolchu

are you not considered the patient and are the files the doctor holds confidential and can not be released without your conscent? if this is the case could you not inform teh doctor in writing that you do not conscent to their release and should he do so you will report him for malpractice?

Teyla Emmagan

Go for it, complain. Both to his office and the medical council. He sounds like a patronising dick. He obviously allowed his opinion to be coloured by the email from HR. He should have assessed you dispassionately and read the email last after actually gathering information on your symptoms and the treatment you had had. The cheek of him asking if you were being paid sick leave!

davo10

Faolchu wrote: »

are you not considered the patient and are the files the doctor holds confidential and can not be released without your conscent? if this is the case could you not inform teh doctor in writing that you do not conscent to their release and should he do so you will report him for malpractice?

No. Written in your contract you will find a clause allowing the employer to have you examined by a GP if you are absent for an extended period. The employer pays the GP and they receive the report. The visit is used to assess:
1 Are you actually sick. Many people have the same GP all their lives and if requested, the GP may feel obliged to sign off someone who has been a patient for many years.
2. Are you capable of returning to work. If the absence is likely to be long term, the employer can terminate your employment but must follow strict procedures.
3. Assess if there is likely to be a health and safety issue. In other words, by returning to work are you likely to become sick again.

The questions asked, must by the nature of the visit, be probing. The employee is not a patient of the Doctor, he/she will have never seen the employee before so as much information as necessary must be garnered in a relatively short timeframe.

Employees always hate these appointments as they think it's their employers way of saying "we don't believe you are sick". But if the GP did not get the details the OP is so offended about, he/she would not be doing the job the employer is paying them for. Using this info, the company can now look at ways of minimising the risk of reoccurrence or re-assigning OP.

Faolchu

davo10 wrote: »

No. Written in your contract you will find a clause allowing the employer to have you examined by a GP if you are absent for an extended period. The employer pays the GP and they receive the report.

I agree with you re the contract however the doctor is still obliged to adhere to data privacy laws in that as a data controller they cant release any data held by you to a thrid party without your OK. now your employer may very well deem your refusal for the release as a breech of contract and it probably is but if the OP feel strongly enough about the doctors report then they can use this avenue to see the report before the employer does and thus be prepared for anything his employer tries.

davo10 wrote: »

Employees always hate these appointments as they think it's their employers way of saying "we don't believe you are sick".

I've seen instances where the employer sends a worker out for assessment after 7 days of sickness after a car crash. i've seen those very same doctors say that an individual who was required to do heavy lifting was fit for work one week after a car crash.

I've also seen it where an employer was satisfied with the sick certs recieved every week as the sick employee hand delivered them but as soon as someone else hand delivered it then employee was sent to the company doctor the very next day. these doctors are biased to the employer as thats where the money comes form.

OP regardless of the report from this doctor do what your own advises you. this guy has seen you for maybe 15 minutes your own has assessed you continually through your rehabilitation and has a better idea of your injury etc. if you are not fit to work your employer can not force you back to work, but as was said if tehy feel strongly enough they may be able to terminate you based on teh fact that you will be unfit to resume full duties

davo10

Faolchu wrote: »

I agree with you re the contract however the doctor is still obliged to adhere to data privacy laws in that as a data controller they cant release any data held by you to a thrid party without your OK. now your employer may very well deem your refusal for the release as a breech of contract and it probably is but if the OP feel strongly enough about the doctors report then they can use this avenue to see the report before the employer does and thus be prepared for anything his employer tries.





I've seen instances where the employer sends a worker out for assessment after 7 days of sickness after a car crash. i've seen those very same doctors say that an individual who was required to do heavy lifting was fit for work one week after a car crash.

I've also seen it where an employer was satisfied with the sick certs recieved every week as the sick employee hand delivered them but as soon as someone else hand delivered it then employee was sent to the company doctor the very next day. these doctors are biased to the employer as thats where the money comes form.

OP regardless of the report from this doctor do what your own advises you. this guy has seen you for maybe 15 minutes your own has assessed you continually through your rehabilitation and has a better idea of your injury etc. if you are not fit to work your employer can not force you back to work, but as was said if tehy feel strongly enough they may be able to terminate you based on teh fact that you will be unfit to resume full duties

For the most part you are right, patient -doctor confidentiality is sacrosanct, but in this case the privilege also applies to the employer as the OP is being sent there to be "independently" assessed ie assessed by someone apart from her own GP. This is perfectly legal and in fact the HSE is one of the most ardent users if this procedure on their own staff. The OP can refuse to allow the report to be forwarded but the employer can then insist that the OP is unable to return to work without it and they will no longer accept certs without independent validation. If employment is terminated and you go to a tribunal, the fact that you refused an examination/permission for report into work related health issue, may go against you, particularly if consent was agreed to in your contract.

Yes the report can be biased toward the employer but not dishonest, the GP will have to stand over it in any resulting proceedings. Also bare in mind that the op's GP will be biased toward her as she is paying her/him. Hence the reason why independent reports are called for.

sparkling sea

Complain its the only way to allow for change no matter whos footing the bill.

Drs have a duty of care to their patients and they also have standards they are meant to aspire to with regard to patient care. If you felt bullied or harrassed by this Dr complain, people just don't complain nearly enough and nothing changes.

Lux23

Years ago, when I was 22 I had a severe bout of depression and attempted suicide on two occasions. I got verbal and written warnings from work, which I accepted, however there is no way I could have worked when I was missing from work. After the verbal warning they sent me to their GP, who proceeded to tell me the following;

1. No-one of my age should really get depressed, but
2. If I was to continue being so selfish I should probably quit my job and go on permanent disability.
3. Then he showed me a chart that he said tracked my sick days and how I was only getting worse. I remember his exact words 'you are not likely to ever get better'.

Now, I understand that he was a company doctor but at that moment in time his job was to talk to me and ascertain if I was well enough to carry out my duties.

His job wasn't to try and convince me to leave, in fact doing this was a complete dereliction of duty and something I could have made a complaint about to the IMC. (I really wish I had looking back on it, what he said to me was devastating at the time)

Anyway OP, my point is this doctor's job was to examine you and let your company know whether or not he agreed with your specialist's diagnosis. His job wasn't to catch you out lying and HR in your company should not be asking him to do so. No doctor no matter who is paying them should make you feel uncomfortable unless they have no choice but to. What worries me is that he could be a doctor who gets lots of work with companies because he is willing to overstep his boundaries and do something that I would consider ethically challenging.

davo10

sparkling sea wrote: »

Complain its the only way to allow for change no matter whos footing the bill.

Drs have a duty of care to their patients and they also have standards they are meant to aspire to with regard to patient care. If you felt bullied or harrassed by this Dr complain, people just don't complain nearly enough and nothing changes.

The OP is not this Dr's patient, it was an independent assessment carried out on behalf if the employer. He was not treating the patient, he was assessing her, in this circumstance there is no duty of care.

davo10

sparkling sea wrote: »

Complain its the only way to allow for change no matter whos footing the bill.

Drs have a duty of care to their patients and they also have standards they are meant to aspire to with regard to patient care. If you felt bullied or harrassed by this Dr complain, people just don't complain nearly enough and nothing changes.

The OP is not this Dr's patient, it was an independent assessment carried out on behalf if the employer. He was not treating the patient, he was assessing her, in this circumstance there is no duty of care.

Lux23

davo10 wrote: »

The OP is not this Dr's patient, it was an independent assessment carried out on behalf if the employer. He was not treating the patient, he was assessing her, in this circumstance there is no duty of care.

How do you work that out? That is a seriously warped view.

And like you said, it was an independent assessment so that should mean he isn't siding with anyone including the employer.

davo10

Lux23 wrote: »

How do you work that out? That is a seriously warped view.

And like you said, it was an independent assessment so that should mean he isn't siding with anyone including the employer.

Experience.

The OP is not attending the GP for a diagnosis nor treatment, merely to assess and confirm the diagnosis and prognosis of her own GP.

The GP is independent in that he does not work for the employer but he is paid by them for the purposes of this appointment. The bias comes from the fact that op's GP and the employers GP view the op's ailment from different viewpoints, one is concerned only about the welfare of the patient, the other assessing what effect this ailment will have on their ability to carry out their duties and whether it is safe for OP to return to work. There is no duty of care attached to the employers GP.

Gongoozler

davo10 wrote: »

The OP is not this Dr's patient, it was an independent assessment carried out on behalf if the employer. He was not treating the patient, he was assessing her, in this circumstance there is no duty of care.

You are wrong on this, it doesn't matter who is paying the bill, the patients interests should always be of paramount importance. It doesn't matter the situation the doctor still has the same duty of care legally.

dixiefly

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Go for it, complain. Both to his office and the medical council. He sounds like a patronising dick. He obviously allowed his opinion to be coloured by the email from HR. He should have assessed you dispassionately and read the email last after actually gathering information on your symptoms and the treatment you had had. The cheek of him asking if you were being paid sick leave!

I agree, he should not have asked questions so unrelated to the medical condition.

Potatoeman

aneenbelle wrote: »

Hi all,

I recently visited my company's doctor for an occupational health check after being off work for a term (this was not my choice but a specialist's recommendation and my company's decision). I'm suffering with a physical issue which had me in pain when I typed (I'm better now).

I went to the GP's office, he read an email sent to him by HR, thereafter I felt I was treated with bias and irony. I was interrogated about the many days I missed work and whether I was paid for all of them. He then asked me to describe what had happened and repeated almost everything I said in a questioning manner as if to check if I'm lying. He admitted he is not a specialist and went on to ask me to do an air typing motion and compared this to typing on a keyboard. He blamed me for the delay between doing necessary tests and seeing a specialist even thought this is not up to me. He even went as far as to say that I may have a psychological issue.

I've seen my own doctor, specialist, done tests and got treatment for my condition through various professionals over the past months to get better and needless to say I have been very upset about this visit and the demeaning treatment I was put through by a so called doctor. I don't want to highlight this issue with my company because I don't want to seem as if I'm saying these things because I'm afraid of what his report may say.

I'm thinking of putting through a complaint to the doctor's office and medical council as I don't think anyone should be treated like this when they are going to see a doctor.

Any thoughts on this?

Could you not get voice recognition software? You dont need to type. Some doctors give sick leave very easily and the company may not be happy with that. Was there any reason you could not go in and even maybe not type.

davo10

Gongoozler wrote: »

You are wrong on this, it doesn't matter who is paying the bill, the patients interests should always be of paramount importance. It doesn't matter the situation the doctor still has the same duty of care legally.

Nope. The OP is not a patient of the doctor. She is there for an assessment only. If you make a claim for injuries suffered and the defendant/insurance company/employer requests an independent assessment, the medical accessor does not assume duty of care, the assessor only gives an independent opinion. I work in this field and have provided both reports and testified in court, at no time have I assumed duty of care.

Stheno

davo10 wrote: »

Nope. The OP is not a patient of the doctor. She is there for an assessment only. If you make a claim for injuries suffered and the defendant/insurance company/employer requests an independent assessment, the medical accessor does not assume duty of care, the assessor only gives an independent opinion.

Agreed

Gongoozler

davo10 wrote: »

Nope. The OP is not a patient of the doctor. She is there for an assessment only If you make a claim for injuries suffered and the defendant/insurance company/employer requests an independent assessment, the medical accessor does not assume duty of care, the assessor only gives an independent opinion. I work in this field and have provided both reports and testified in court, at no time have I assumed duty of care.

I work in the field, at the other side, and I know that you are wrong. Any doctor treating any patient is subject to the same guide and law. If you have any doubts about your obligations, contact the Medical Council, and they'll put you right.

davo10

Gongoozler wrote: »

I work in the field, at the other side, and I know that you are wrong. Any doctor treating any patient is subject to the same guide and law. If you have any doubts about your obligations, contact the Medical Council, and they'll put you right.

I have no doubt, in this case the GP is not "treating" the OP, he is providing an independent report only. The OP is not attending in expectation of receiving medical treatment nor advice, in this case the GP is neither diagnosing nor providing advice/treatment, there is no duty of care. The consent to the examination and provision of the report is obtained in the contract which an employee signs and it is fair to assume that a job is offered contingent on an employee agreeing to the T&Cs.

Gongoozler

Dave you may have gotten away with doing that, it doesn't mean it's ok, just means you haven't been reported.

OP by all means report it to the Medical Council

davo10

Gongoozler wrote: »

Dave you may have gotten away with doing that, it doesn't mean it's ok, just means you haven't been reported.

OP by all means report it to the Medical Council

I don't mean to derail this thread but "gotten away" with what exactly?. The medical practitioner providing independent reports of this type do not carry out diagnostic tests, no blood tests, no x-rays, no ultrasounds/MRIs etc. the purpose of this type of visit is to assess the employees ability to work based on the snapshot of info provided relating to their absence from work. No medical practitioner would assume responsibility for a patient care under these circumstances.

Perhaps by "duty of care" you are referring to the forwarding/refusal by an employee to consent to forwarding of the report, as I have said in an earlier post, the employee can refuse this permission but they then have to deal with the consequences to their employment.

If you have a car crash and are injured. You can make a claim for injuries suffered, the insurance company may want to have you examined to establish the validity of your claim. During that examination duty of care does not transfer from your GP to the assessing GP, they simply assess the data provided by you and your doctors relating to that claim, nothing more.

Lux23

Sorry Dave, what you are talking about is highly suspicious, if your company is doing something like this they need to change their policy NOW.

It is frightening the crap people go around spouting just because their 'experience' tells them so. My experience would tell me that it is ok for a company doctor to try and convince an employee to quit their job because they are never going to get better. But from subsequent conversations with HR professionals and doctors, I know this is not the case.

Also, if you are talking about medicals prior to starting a job that is not what the OP is talking about.

davo10

Lux23 wrote: »

Sorry Dave, what you are talking about is highly suspicious, if your company is doing something like this they need to change their policy NOW.

It is frightening the crap people go around spouting just because their 'experience' tells them so. My experience would tell me that it is ok for a company doctor to try and convince an employee to quit their job because they are never going to get better. But from subsequent conversations with HR professionals and doctors, I know this is not the case.

Also, if you are talking about medicals prior to starting a job that is not what the OP is talking about.

Ah, I'm sorry, there are crossed wires here. I was not in any way condoning what your GP said nor commenting on the content of the appointment. What I was referring to was that scope if the assessment and the GPs responsibilities. The GP remit at these appointments is to provide an opinion on whether the person is sick, the likelihood of a return to work and any safety concerns for the employer. It is not the place of the GP to perform tests, diagnose illnesses nor treat the person, that care is provided by the OPs own GP and specialists. My "experience" is not as a company nor employer.

aneenbelle

To answer another question I'm not taking any legal action against my employer and no action is being taken against me at this time.


I appreciate the value of the occupational health check to the employer however I don't think the doctor has any right to be asking me if Im getting paid during sick leave or not. I and most employees are happy to go to an Ocupational Health check but being interogated, judged and treated as a lazy liar by a GP especially when you are already going through a very tought time is unacceptable.

davo10 wrote: »

No. Written in your contract you will find a clause allowing the employer to have you examined by a GP if you are absent for an extended period. The employer pays the GP and they receive the report. The visit is used to assess:
1 Are you actually sick. Many people have the same GP all their lives and if requested, the GP may feel obliged to sign off someone who has been a patient for many years.
2. Are you capable of returning to work. If the absence is likely to be long term, the employer can terminate your employment but must follow strict procedures.
3. Assess if there is likely to be a health and safety issue. In other words, by returning to work are you likely to become sick again.

The questions asked, must by the nature of the visit, be probing. The employee is not a patient of the Doctor, he/she will have never seen the employee before so as much information as necessary must be garnered in a relatively short timeframe.

Employees always hate these appointments as they think it's their employers way of saying "we don't believe you are sick". But if the GP did not get the details the OP is so offended about, he/she would not be doing the job the employer is paying them for. Using this info, the company can now look at ways of minimising the risk of reoccurrence or re-assigning OP.

aneenbelle

Im sorry to hear about what happened it's absolutely appaling. I felt exactly that...devastated that a doctor would treat me like this and devastated that my incredible collegues and other people too will have to endure such treatment if one day they get sick.

Lux23 wrote: »

Years ago, when I was 22 I had a severe bout of depression and attempted suicide on two occasions. I got verbal and written warnings from work, which I accepted, however there is no way I could have worked when I was missing from work. After the verbal warning they sent me to their GP, who proceeded to tell me the following;

1. No-one of my age should really get depressed, but
2. If I was to continue being so selfish I should probably quit my job and go on permanent disability.
3. Then he showed me a chart that he said tracked my sick days and how I was only getting worse. I remember his exact words 'you are not likely to ever get better'.

Now, I understand that he was a company doctor but at that moment in time his job was to talk to me and ascertain if I was well enough to carry out my duties.

His job wasn't to try and convince me to leave, in fact doing this was a complete dereliction of duty and something I could have made a complaint about to the IMC. (I really wish I had looking back on it, what he said to me was devastating at the time)

Anyway OP, my point is this doctor's job was to examine you and let your company know whether or not he agreed with your specialist's diagnosis. His job wasn't to catch you out lying and HR in your company should not be asking him to do so. No doctor no matter who is paying them should make you feel uncomfortable unless they have no choice but to. What worries me is that he could be a doctor who gets lots of work with companies because he is willing to overstep his boundaries and do something that I would consider ethically challenging.