NL: UWV Dutch Employee Insurance Agency ao disability

Turtle said:
There was a 3-step procedure. First UWV, they stood by their own decision 20 hours a week. Then appeals court, that decided, in short, UWV had to do their homework again, in doing that they considered my objections again. An objective CPET-test with numbers does not allow talking up the numbers from 40% to 44%, because that was measured to be enough for a job as telephonist. Only one job offered was not enough, the law required 3, with each 10 realistic openenings available. The other 2 jobs were energetically out of the question (probably not VO2max measured).
Maybe there was more but these were the most important.

Not using CPET at all would have meant for me no disability and still working 20 hours that made me worse or accepting no work no income.
Click to expand...
So you had to do a CPET for your disability claim?

Sounds like a very weird system they’ve got going on..
 
Turtle said:
I used my CPET outcomes for my disability claim, no one ordered me to do that.
I needed objective data: CPET provided that. Letters from 3 doctors did not help.
My own words did not "prove" anything.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining!

Seems like a discriminating system, then, and that the current ruling doesn’t really change the landscape that much.
 
The UWV uses the FML (Functionele Mogelijkheden Lijst) Functional abilities list.

However this list does not include how long you can do something, so a huge disadvantage for ME patients.

The Steungroep also has written a report and it showed a lot of Me patients get assessed well enough to work 20 hours even the house- and bedbound patients.

The UWV also is very good at discounting other dr’s, especially foreign dr’s and other tests.

I had the TTT (and yes it crashed me), and a lower vo2max, but they did not change their assessment.

So in my view it is positive that they have to take these things seriously.

These tests should not be made mandatory, but if people have them they should be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
To add why this legal ruling is positive;

UWV claimed that ME was ‘niet objectiveerbaar’ translation not objectifiable.

They meant that there was no objective proof. However they never tried to make it objectifiable by
  • offering to test patients AND
  • they mostly rejected the testing that patients had done
  • Also any scientific publication whether international or not by government sources, they would reject.
 
Chestnut tree said:
To add why this legal ruling is positive;

UWV claimed that ME was ‘niet objectiveerbaar’ translation not objectifiable.

They meant that there was no objective proof. However they never tried to make it objectifiable by
  • offering to test patients AND
  • they mostly rejected the testing that patients had done
  • Also any scientific publication whether international or not by government sources, they would reject.
Click to expand...
And yet, objectifiability is not necessary. There are diseases that aren't denied or discriminated where objective assessment is still not possible, so it's all very arbitrary. Especially as the claim is generally that objective diagnoses are not necessary, it's functional assessment that is taken into consideration, but it's subject to so much interpretation that the interpretation is all that's considered.

A system of rules where exceptions rule more than the actual rules. Unaccountable. Opaque. Such a mystery why it works poorly. But of course it generally works exactly as intended: they don't want to help everyone, some are worth helping more than others, some deserve to be discarded entirely. Same as it ever was, the arbitrariness of a charity system, with the rigid formality of a bureaucratic one, the worst of both.
 
rvallee said:
And yet, objectifiability is not necessary. There are diseases that aren't denied or discriminated where objective assessment is still not possible, so it's all very arbitrary. Especially as the claim is generally that objective diagnoses are not necessary, it's functional assessment that is taken into consideration, but it's subject to so much interpretation that the interpretation is all that's considered.

A system of rules where exceptions rule more than the actual rules. Unaccountable. Opaque. Such a mystery why it works poorly. But of course it generally works exactly as intended: they don't want to help everyone, some are worth helping more than others, some deserve to be discarded entirely. Same as it ever was, the arbitrariness of a charity system, with the rigid formality of a bureaucratic one, the worst of both.
Click to expand...
Agree. I saw some old articles from when disability fell under the WAO (the previous disability law, now we have the WIA). The tweede kamer (the House of Commons) decided that you did not need an objectifiable test.

But still here we are.

In the end they just try to deny benefits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom