bronchitis” (one or more “Chronic entries) (two or more entries) “Bronchitis” and phlegm/sputum/spit” (“ “Cough “ “) cough” (“ “Productive “ “) exacerbation of chronic bronchitis” (one or more entries) Following a request to comment on suggestions for possible changes in this medical assessment process, Dr Rudd and Dr responded in a letter dated 3 April 2000: Respiratory Specialist must see medical records in order “The to make an assessment of past disability, for corroboration of past chronic bronchitis and smoking history, and for accurate information about possible co-morbid conditions.” Dr Rudd and Dr Moore-Gillon were thereafter joined by Professor Britton and together they continued to oversee the application of the guidance to the operation of the CHA. In a letter of November 2001 they observed: can regard it as reasonable that the specialist should be “We asked to come to a careful judgement upon whether or not chronic bronchitis may have been present when the records are very scanty or absent. They should not, however, come to the diagnosis that chronic bronchitis was present when the records are clear and detailed, and show that chronic bronchitis was not present.” In a further letter in November 2001, the three experts went on to say: of chronic bronchitis “Corroboration We confirm that we are trial to redraft the guidance to the RS [respiratory specialist] on this point, to make it clear that corroboration need not be present, but that the RS must still form an expert judgement on this matter and certainly cannot conclude that chronic bronchitis is present simply on the basis of the claims questionnaire and where there is clear evidence to the contrary in existing contemporaneous records.” On 1 May 2002, there followed a report from the Medical Reference Panel, of which the three experts were the authors, in which they produced further guidance on the diagnosis of CB, describing how they were aware that there had been disquiet about the need for corroboration of the diagnosis of CB in the records and, indeed, about the very use of the term The experts proposed that further short guidance “corroboration”. should be circulated to the respiratory specialists to include the following:
“Chronic bronchitis” (one or more entries) “Bronchitis” (two or more entries) “Cough and phlegm/sputum/spit” (“ “ “) “Productive cough” (“ “ “) exacerbation of chronic bronchitis” (one or more entries) Following a request to comment on suggestions for possible changes in this medical assessment process, Dr Rudd and Dr responded in a letter dated 3 April 2000: “The Respiratory Specialist must see medical records in order to make an assessment of past disability, for corroboration of past chronic bronchitis and smoking history, and for accurate information about possible co-morbid conditions.” Dr Rudd and Dr Moore-Gillon were thereafter joined by Professor Britton and together they continued to oversee the application of the guidance to the operation of the CHA. In a letter of November 2001 they observed: “We can regard it as reasonable that the specialist should be asked to come to a careful judgement upon whether or not chronic bronchitis may have been present when the records are very scanty or absent. They should not, however, come to the diagnosis that chronic bronchitis was present when the records are clear and detailed, and show that chronic bronchitis was not present.” In a further letter in November 2001, the three experts went on to say: “Corroboration of chronic bronchitis We confirm that we are to redraft the guidance to the RS [respiratory specialist] on this point, to make it clear that corroboration need not be present, but that the RS must still form an expert judgement on this matter and certainly cannot conclude that chronic bronchitis is present simply on the basis of the claims questionnaire and where there is clear evidence to the contrary in existing contemporaneous records.” On 1 May 2002, there followed a report from the Medical Reference Panel, of which the three experts were the authors, in which they produced further guidance on the diagnosis of CB, describing how they were aware that there had been disquiet about the need for corroboration of the diagnosis of CB in the records and, indeed, about the very use of the term “corroboration”. The experts proposed that further short guidance should be circulated to the respiratory specialists to include the following: trial
RTW_31.07.18_Coal_Coke_Workers_Litigation_APPROVED_JUDGMENT_.docx