Letters to the Editor |
Reply
We thank Mr Edwards of the Local Government Employers (LGE) for explaining the thinking behind Circulars 73 and 113 that help with the interpretation of the term ‘comparable employment’ in Regulation 27(1) of the Local Government Pensions Scheme Regulations and agree that only a Court can provide definitive interpretation of a Regulation. In so doing, it may take into consideration the views of employer representatives such as the LGE, the ODPM (now DCLG), the doctors who have to work with the Regulations and the socio-political context in which they were written.The above circulars contain phrases that are capable of alternative interpretations such as the time period for permanence of incapacity for ‘comparable work’ as being ‘the time the retirement is under consideration’, whereas for current employment it is clearly up to age 65 years. Furthermore, the doctor who issues the certificate of permanent incapacity is required to certify that the member is permanently unfit for ‘comparable work’ but with no reference to its short time period. It is also unfortunate that the doctor may be asked to give an opinion in the absence of any credible evidence that ‘comparable work’ has been sought. It is important that each case is carefully assessed by the employer, their medical adviser and the independent doctor acting on behalf of the pension scheme using a robust and auditable process.
We believe that our professional opinions should be strictly medical and not used to encompass non-medical decisions such as the availability of ‘comparable employment’.
e-mail: jon.poole{at}dudley.nhs.uk
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||