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:
Tree said:
Source: Dutch Steungroep

Several patients with MEcfs who were denied disability benefits or disability benefits were halted, took legal action.

Translation (it does not translate, seems a protected article, so this is a manual version)

28th of May 2025 An exiting day at the Central Council of Appeal

Ynske Jansen was present at a session of the Central Council of Appeal.

Four ME patients whose benefits were halted or were denied disability benefits, appealed against the decisions of the UWV [ed; the Dutch agency for disability benefits]

This case is important, also for many others with ME.

There is reason for some hope.

Original article in Dutch
https://www.steungroep.nl/nieuws/al...spannende-dag-bij-de-centrale-raad-van-beroep

There is an attachment of 6 pages in Dutch, if anyone is interested, let me know then I will put the translation up here as well.
Click to expand...
Update on this case;

Source: Steungroep.nl

Dutch link
www.steungroep.nl

16 september 2025: UWV kent 3 ME-patiënten met terugwerkende kracht een IVA-uitkering toe

Rechtshulpverlener John Eshuis maakte bekend dat het UWV in alle drie zaken van de tussenuitspraken van de Centrale Raad van beroep van 17 juli een IVA-uitkering voor volledige arbeidsongeschiktheid heeft toegekend. Tot aan de zitting van de CRvB van 28 mei had het UWV volgehouden dat deze...
www.steungroep.nl

English translation

September 16, 2025: UWV retroactively awards IVA benefits to 3 ME patients

(Red; IVA is when you are considered fully and permanently unable to work)


Legal aid provider John Eshuis announced that the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) has awarded IVA benefits for full work incapacity in all three cases of the interim rulings of the Central Appeals Tribunal of July 17.

Until the May 28 hearing of the Central Appeals Tribunal, the UWV had maintained that these ME patients could work 36 or 40 hours per week. Now they will receive IVA benefits retroactively. This is excellent news


More new decisions expected

The Central Appeals Tribunal has asked the UWV to issue new decisions in several similar, ongoing cases. The first of these decisions are expected in October.

In addition, some lawyers are requesting a review for clients with ME who previously filed unsuccessful objections or appeals.


It can't stop there.

The UWV has acknowledged that ME/CFS is a disease that causes serious
limitations, including PEM (post-exertional malaise, worsening after exertion), orthostatic intolerance (becoming more ill when standing or sitting upright), and problems with memory and concentration.

Finally, the UWV was forced to assume plausibility and consistency when determining a work-hour restriction.


Correction

The ME and Work Disability Support Group had already asked the UWV to draw the consequences from these rulings. We will work with several lawyers to achieve a correction for as many ME patients as possible who the UWV has incorrectly assessed in light of recent developments.

Those involved can follow the news on our website and register via info@steungroep.nl, with your name and phone number, and the subject line "CRvB." Also indicate whether you have a deadline due to an upcoming assessment or a deadline for filing an objection or appeal. We will take this into account as much as possible.

Edit: In some cases the V of UWV was missing, now added
 
Last edited:
Jim Faas, insurance dr who is known for his support for MECFS patients posted this.


IMG_3643.jpeg

Translation X-post

Fresh of the press - In the three MEcfs cases the Central Council has retroactively awarded IVA

This news seems to me important enough to share

And can have far reaching consequences for other similar open and closed cases

There will be no final rulings

Message of the legal representative (included in the Xpost as an image, not translated)
 
Tree said:
Legal aid provider John Eshuis announced that the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) has awarded IVA benefits for full work incapacity in all three cases of the interim rulings of the Central Appeals Tribunal of July 17.

Until the May 28 hearing of the Central Appeals Tribunal, the UW had maintained that these ME patients could work 36 or 40 hours per week. Now they will receive IVA benefits retroactively. This is excellent news
Click to expand...
The behaviour by the UW is appalling. I would not be surprised if there is a legal case for discrimination, especially in the context of CRPD. This should result in serious consequences for the people that have been in charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom