GP sick note versus Company doctor visit

LegacyUser

My brother has been having problems at work and has been trying to resolve it with HR but the problems are still going on. He was signed off by his GP with stress and HR sent him to the company doctor, who says he is fit for work. Who ranks higher, his own GP or the company doctor?

Nody

From a company perspective I'd guess company doctor as there are plenty of examples of frivolous GP sign offs (inc. a case I know personally were someone got their doctor to sign of that they had broken their leg and had to be off for 4 weeks; the exact same weeks said person had applied and been denied vacation for earlier that month and he also refused to see the company doctor). Legally you're best of speaking with a solicitor though as we can not give you advise on how the law would read it.

berger89

Yeah I'd say the company doctor tbh

GladWrap

The GP wins out here. But it's not a matter of who ranks higher but whether the situation has been dealt with reasonably.

A GP is a registered health practitioner and by law and as such, a certificate is a legal document. As the law provides that a worker must attend a doctor to provide a certificate and he has done so, they have to accept the certificate. Should they wish to challenge it they must do so by instigating legal proceedings. They can't just dismiss it and then force your brother to attend their doctor. This is a violation of his rights. Forced attendance upon a company doctor is also conflict of interest and is disadvantageous to your brother...as he'll soon find out.

Your brother did not have to attend the company doctor once that sign off had been issued as he has been lawfully deemed not fit for work.

He could now counter any action of claims made against him by citing said violation of his rights.

Given the background, I'd be seeing a solicitor who specialises in employment law about this one.

DM addict

Whenever I've heard of people needing to see a company doctor, it's been to verify that they were healthy enough to work.

E.g. a friend had major surgery and the company listened to her report from her doctor, but asked that she was checked out by their doctor before returning to work. This was because there was a significant manual element to the job and I'm guessing it was for insurance also.

I'd be inclined to say that his GP is right, as surely his own doctor knows better whether or not he's suffering from stress. But I'd agree with the above poster - talk to an employment solicitor now.

qt3.14

I'd imagine a diagnosis of stress severe enough to warrant an absence from work would be something a family GP would arrive at over a period of time. A couple of methods of coping are usually tried before the atomic option is used. Not really the kind of thing a single visit to a complete stranger would be likely to pick up on.

GladWrap

That's not the point and not up for speculation. The point is that once a certificate has been issued by a registered practitioner then that stands. If anyone should doubt the veracity of that certificate then there are formal avenues they are required to take and that does not including dismissing said certificate and forcing the employee to attend their company doctor.

davo10

Gladwrap, I'd be interested to read the legislation to back up your claims.

As always, it's the terms of the contract which are all important. Most contracts have a clause outlining procedures during sick leave and one often included is the right of the employer to get an independent medical opinion when an employee is absent repeatedly or for long periods. This is a valid and legal condition of employment and if it is in the contract, an employee must attend the GP of the companies choosing at the employers expense, if they don't, it is breach of contract.. This GP will not diagnose a medical condition, will not carry out tests eg x-rays, blood tests etc but he/she will be allowed to question an employee and to interpret any medical data provided by employee to support their claim of illness. The GP can then decide to agree or disagree with the employees claims but must outline to the employer why they disagree.

Just a little Samba

davo10 wrote: »

Gladwrap, I'd be interested to read the legislation to back up your claims.

As always, it's the terms of the contract which are all important. Most contracts have a clause outlining procedures during sick leave and one often included is the right of the employer to get an independent medical opinion when an employee is absent repeatedly or for long periods. This is a valid and legal condition of employment and if it is in the contract, an employee must attend the GP of the companies choosing at the employers expense, if they don't, it is breach of contract.. This GP will not diagnose a medical condition, will not carry out tests eg x-rays, blood tests etc but he/she will be allowed to question an employee and to interpret any medical data provided by employee to support their claim of illness. The GP can then decide to agree or disagree with the employees claims but must outline to the employer why they disagree.

Contracts cannot supercede state mandated employment laws. Companies have been hung out to dry in the labour court for trying it in the past.

davo10

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Contracts cannot supercede state mandated employment laws. Companies have been hung out to dry in the labour court for trying it in the past.

Which law prevents a company from getting an independent medical opinion? Incidentally, this clause is routinely used by both the HSE and Public Service in their contracts.

Just a little Samba

davo10 wrote: »

Which law prevents a company from getting an independent medical opinion? Incidentally, this clause is routinely used by both the HSE and Public Service in their contracts.

A medical cert is a legal document, challenging the cert is challenging the issuer. Its basically calling a gp a liar.

Oafley Jones

Just a little Samba wrote: »

A medical cert is a legal document, challenging the cert is challenging the issuer. Its basically calling a gp a liar.

Or incompetent. I'd also contact the GP. They'll probably want to get in touch with the medical council.

Tzardine

Let's be frank. Plenty of doctors will give you a sick cert if there is nothing wrong with you.

I work in the Public Service and deal with sick as part of my role. This is rife in the industry.

We will quite often refer people to the CMO (company doctor) where we know they are signed off by a doctor and there is nothing wrong with them.

People getting GP notes for stress is a joke now and makes a mockery of the whole system.

As per the OP question. If the company is sending the person to a company doctor I think it's fair to assume that it is in the employment contract that they can do so.

For us, the CMO opinion outweighs the GP.

davo10

Just a little Samba wrote: »

A medical cert is a legal document, challenging the cert is challenging the issuer. Its basically calling a gp a liar.

Nope, it's asking for a second opinion. A medical cert can be challenged, as all legal documents can be. Medical reports get challenged every day in the courts, to not challenge would be to presume a Doctor is infallible.

krankykitty

Tzardine wrote: »

We will quite often refer people to the CMO (company doctor) where we know they are signed off by a doctor and there is nothing wrong with them.

For us, the CMO opinion outweighs the GP.

How do you know there is nothing wrong with them? Are the people who receive the notes in your organisation medical professionals that you feel you know more than the GP who is qualified and who has full access to medical history etc?

For you the CMO outweighs the GP, does this stand up under employment law?

christy02

We send any employee off sick for more than 3 weeks to company doctor. If company doctor deems them fit for work then they are expected to return.
If they will not return (irrespective of personal gp opinion) then company will start disciplinary action up to and including dismissal

Unusual to be fair that the 2 disagree. Unless doctor nick is the gp in question!!!!

Nody

krankykitty wrote: »

How do you know there is nothing wrong with them? Are the people who receive the notes in your organisation medical professionals that you feel you know more than the GP who is qualified and who has full access to medical history etc?

They don't have to be; that's why the employee is referred to the CMO. It's also quite easy to spot people who have a tendency to pull a quick one because they start doing it more and more blatantly; of course from an employee ground you simply want to check if they are capable to do their job (as it's grounds for letting said person go is failure to do their job due to sickness).

For you the CMO outweighs the GP, does this stand up under employment law?

Lets put it this way; my CMO says the employee can work but is not showing up for work. The employee is claiming his GP says he has to stay home. My answer? Disciplinary action due to absence due to sickness and due to this failure to do their job due to their sickness which is a valid ground to let someone go as a GP cert is NOT protection from being let go from a job (which some people think).

LegacyUser

The company handbook says he can be sent to the company doctor after 3 days, so he went.

He talked to his GP before he got the letter from the company, and his GP said he thinks he would benefit from another two weeks off. He's afraid of HR and his boss and the letter has upset him more. He spoke to a solicitor before Christmas but he is expected back at work before the solicitor reopens. He spent Christmas locked in his room. He thinks he is being forced into resogning but doesn't want to leave.

Tzardine

krankykitty wrote: »

For you the CMO outweighs the GP, does this stand up under employment law?

Yes it does. It has been tested in the LRC. By us personally.

Shelflife

When did a doctors cert become a legal document ? Its an opinion based usually on a consultation and could be totally wrong.

I once got a cert from a Dr who backdated the cert by three days, employee went to Dr on weds and Dr backdated cert to include the mon and tues.

Its way too easy to get a cert for stress or backpain.

GladWrap

Shelfy, because legislation requires an employee who is taking leave because of a personal illness to provide evidence of that illness that would satisfy a reasonable person, the medical certificate provides such evidence and, as such, becomes a legal document. Medical certificates are widely accepted as sufficient evidence and are required under some industrial instruments. This is not to say that an employer cannot question the validity of a certificate because they are entitled to investigate what they believe to be instances of misconduct but that to do so would require a formal avenue of inquiry as I mentioned earlier.

Just because you find it easy to take advantage of a system doesn't mean everyone else does

I think we need to remember here that company handbooks are not legislative instruments. They reflect company policy that may comply with legislation (or not). Often, employees are compelled to attend their company's doctor when, in fact, certain circumstances may mean they are not lawfully required to do so. So to say that "he went" does not mean he did so willingly or that he agreed with the directive or that it was lawful.

To cite that a company doctor usurps a general practitioner at law is a pretty wide claim. True, there have been cases where an employer has successfully argued their position but this does not represent the law in general but a very, very small and particularised fraction of it.

Like I said, OP, seeing an employment solicitor on this one would be a good idea. Best of luck.

davo10

GladWrap wrote: »

Shelfy, because legislation requires an employee who is taking leave because of a personal illness to provide evidence of that illness that would satisfy a reasonable person, the medical certificate provides such evidence and, as such, becomes a legal document. Medical certificates are widely accepted as sufficient evidence and are required under some industrial instruments.

Gladwrap, take it easy on the legal talk or at least try and make sure what you post is factual. There is absolutely no legislation which requires an employee taking leave to produce a certificate. The employer can however request it as a condition of employment. A certificate is not a legal document, it is a certificate which satisfies the employers minimum requirement for authorised absence due to illness. As stated, the employer is entitled to seek an opinion from a GP nominated by the employer at the employers expense.

Gladwrap, if you want confirmation that it is legal for an employer to request an independent medical assessment, do a google search on this:

"Department of Health and Children Circular 10/71"

Check point 9(ii) "Granting of Sick Leave". It clearly states that an independent medical assessment can be sought for all employees.

Shelflife

Just because you find it easy to take advantage of a system doesn't mean everyone else does


Not what you think gladwrap, I'm an employer, the cert I got was from an employee who told me they were just at the Dr and had a backdated cert.