Work Issues

Share your story
1

I had two strokes in Sept 21, a bleed and clot. I continue to work but my current employer, who i have worked for since Nov 23, virtually since day one it has been one issue after another. Ive been off work since Oct 25 with stress and now receive no pay. Income Protection insurance wont pay as i dont meet their definition of incapacity. Even though my stress has made my stroke symptoms worse ie increased poor memory, retention, fatigue, slurred speech, cognitively feel shot, depression, GP referred me to neurology and MH Team. Im appealing the insurers decision but my stress etc is getting worse. Insurers wont fast track my appeal.

Has anyone had similar work issues?

2 Likes
2

Ring ACAS for advice. At least you’ll then know what your employer can, and must not, do.

1 Like
3

I agree about conta ting ACAS.

Has your current employer ever done any sort of occupational health assessment for you & put in place any reasonable adjustments to help you?

You don’t say what the issues are but I assume they are related to your stroke affects.

It is common for insurance companies to turn down claims but do appeal and see what happens. In the meantime have you looked at claiming ESA? If your SSP has expired & you have enough national insurance credits then you may be entitled. It isn’t vast sums of money but it all helps.

Best wishes

Ann

2 Likes
4

I read your post and honestly, I’m angry on your behalf. You’re not just dealing with the aftermath of two strokes, you’re dealing with an employer who seems to have been difficult from the start, and an insurance company that’s hiding behind a definition of “incapacity” that clearly doesn’t fit the reality of life after a stroke.

The fact that your stress is making your stroke symptoms worse—memory, retention, fatigue, speech, cognition—isn’t just your observation. Your GP agrees, and they’ve referred you to neurology and the Mental Health Team. That’s medical evidence. The insurer is choosing to ignore it, or at best, downplay it, because paying out is not in their interest. It’s cynical, and it’s wrong.

A few thoughts that might help, not because you should have to do more work, but because you deserve to fight back:

  1. Document everything. Every symptom, every bad day, every conversation with your employer, every letter from the insurer. Keep a daily log—even one or two sentences. “Today I couldn’t remember my partner’s name for 10 seconds.” “Today I had to nap after a 15-minute phone call.” That kind of evidence is harder to dismiss than a single GP letter.

  2. Ask your GP or neurologist to write a functional report, not just a diagnostic one. The insurer’s definition of incapacity is about function—what you can and can’t do. Your doctors need to spell out: “This patient cannot work full-time because of X, Y, Z, and stress exacerbates all of these.” Be explicit.

  3. Contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (if you’re in the UK) or your country’s equivalent. They can sometimes pressure insurers to reconsider or at least expedite appeals, especially where health is deteriorating.

  4. Reach out to a stroke charity—the Stroke Association (UK) has advisors who deal with benefit and employment issues all the time. They know the system and can advocate or advise.

  5. Consider whether your employer has failed in their duty of care. Since November 2023, they’ve had issues with you—did they make reasonable adjustments? Did they engage with Occupational Health? If not, that’s worth noting, not just for your appeal but potentially for a grievance or employment tribunal.

As for your question: yes, many stroke survivors have had work issues. You are not alone in this. But I’ll be honest—most people don’t face this level of relentless pressure from both employer and insurer at the same time. You’re being squeezed from both sides, and it’s no wonder your symptoms are worse.

Please don’t let the insurer’s rejection make you doubt yourself. Their definition of incapacity is not the truth of your body. It’s a legal loophole. You are incapacitated—your brain is telling you that every day. The system is just failing to catch up.

Keep posting ! Pando

1 Like
5

Getting all the benefits im entitled to. Been to Occ Health at least 6-8 times in two years. Work just say if you want to change teams you will have to apply like anyone else. Ive applied for over 100 jobs outside of the company and had 20+ interviews. I have no confidence in myself, speech, memory, recall that ive not been able to secure a job to escape where i am. Cognitively im shot. Yet insurers maintain that if i changed jobs id get better. O if it was that simple. Lost 60% of my hearing due to the strokes, work expect one day on site in an open plan office. Trying to explain all the effects problems with work is not easy and the cumulative effect over the course is so tiring in itself.

Fin Ombudsman wont intervene until review by ensurers occurs and final decision is given. Meanwhile im in limbo and had to cash in a pension just to survive.

Whole system is floored not joined up and even if well difficult to navigate and tiring to just keep on battling.

Running alongside your left waiting for ESA to say if your in a Support Group and given additional monies.

Meanwhile bank manager is more than happy to let you keep spending default on the mortgage, not a problem, yeah right.

So absolutely no pressure. dealing with all that let alone the effects of the strokes.

1 Like
6

Hello @JTC - nice to meet you. I have seen your post and don’t believe I have met you before and so I am not fully up to speed with your story which makes it slightly trickier for me to assess or understand the situation.

I note others have already offered plenty of advice and also note you are a “veteran” in the sense your previous post on this forum was 4 years ago. From this, I am going to assume (not something I like to do, but I feel I have to on this occasion) that you have been dealing or coping until now. Either that or you have struggled for 4 years before deciding you should seek some help.

I am looking at your posts and for me, the things that “cause concern” are:

  1. You say your current employer who you have worked for since Nov 2023. But you had your strokes in 2021 and I believe, having done some catchup from earlier posts, you went back to work for the employer you were working for when you had your stroke in a phased manner. This is what I have seen in most other cases and as such, since it was an existing employer, they seem to be more helpful as you are an “existing” employee and they will have obligations to support you under employment laws etc. I can’t be more specific as I am not an expert on employment laws, but this is how it seems to work. As an existing employee you have rights and “greater protection”.

What worries me about your case is you are with a new employer who you joined in Nov 2023. The reason why I say “worries me” is because I am now not clear what your current employer knew about your medical history i.e. the stroke and the challenges you are faced with when they took you on. Whilst I expect the recruitment process should have established that a) you were capable of doing the job you were being hired to do as described and b) both and the employer were happy with the required commitments.

Normally when you join a new company, there is a probationary period during which it is established that the employee will be able to do the job they have been hired to do. This might be 3 months or 6 months and during this time I guess any issues might be ironed out so that by the end of the probationary period, the employee is retained or released or the employee chooses to leave if they are not happy.

Beyond this I cannot comment but I find it unusual that you are in a new job and it is your new employer who is proving to unsupportive.

I don’t know how the above affects your position from employment laws perspective.

  1. Income Protection
    Again, I am not an expert, but am aware that insurance companies tend to be happy to take your premiums but reluctant to pay out citing things in “small print” that most people don’t read when taking up the policies. I note you have appealed their decision and I wish you successful outcome on appeal.

I appreciate you are in a difficult situation and things are difficult, and don’t know what I can suggest other than what has already been offered by other members.

I have tried to play “devils advocate” in response to your post because to me, it doesn’t seem to be as straightforward as others I have seen on this forum.

There are positives in your post including the fact you are getting all the benefits you are entitled which btw is an achievement in itself as many on this forum will attest to.

All I can say in closing is that you have clearly managed to find the strength to fight on since the stroke and indeed you have made a successful return to work. I hope this strength will allow you to continue to fight on and wish you all the best.

I am sorry if this is not helpful.

Namaste|
Jim
:pray:

7

Screening process following initial job offer was very intense. So for full disclosure i informed Occ Health that i’d had two strokes. So yes they were fully aware pre and post unconditional job offer stage.

1 Like
8

Thank you for confirming.

From what you say, it seems clear to me your employer appears to be behaving unreasonably and you have every right to feel the way you do. I don’t have any new advice to offer as I believe the previous respondents have covered anything I might have thought of.

What I can offer you is moral support and I would like you to stay strong and seek out the help that is available out there. I don’t expect it to be easy - these things rarely are but I feel you have done incredibly well post-stroke and I hope you can continue to stay strong to fight your corner.

:pray:

9

More of a rhetorical question, why is it always a battle. Everything seems geared to make it more difficult for people, in the hope they give up and that the people who need help have to navigate a maze of hurdles blindfolded.

1 Like
10

Rhetorical question answered :slight_smile:

It is hugely frustrating and so unnecessary but I guess it’s the way of the world :frowning:

:pray:

11

Hi @JTC sorry to hear about your issues and for what you are facing, in a similar situation but not the entirely same one. I do understand work post stroke is difficult in fact usually made worse by others ignorance about how stroke can affect you.

Have you tried your trade union if applicable or something like a local workers support service-our local unemployed workers team were great getting dad sorted out 20+ years back when he suffered a stroke. Sadly I joined him but my employer thinks because I’m still one of their best , can walk, talk and think for myself and neither spoon fed or in nappies that I’m ok. I struggled again recently and am off sick with stress as had been doing things I no longer can such as lifting furniture with one hand, ripping up flooring so understand how frustrated you are just now- hope things get better and that you find some answers.

1 Like
12

Hello@JTC,
If your income protection insurance will not pay out and if you disagree with their refusal, you can appeal to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO). T o do so, you need to get a Final DecisionNotice letter from them (the insurer) to send to the FSO. All this costs you nothing but every reference to the FSO costs your insurer several hundred pounds in fees,so this may cause the insurer to have a rethink about liability.It has to be worth a try !
Best of luck.
Bob Isle.

1 Like
13

Thank you.

I had registered a complaint with FOS before insurers gave their final decision as a proactive measure.

Decision came yesterday and my appeal was unsuccessful. Reasons for disagreeing with the insurers have been submitted to FOS today. So now down to their discretion and any action. I have requested it to be treated as urgent due to financial hardship and medical grounds.

Obviously im biased but there are multiple grounds to challenge but may not be upheld. Two for example were; as my strokes were in 2021 then they were “done and dusted” ie that the recovery had occurred and therefore were not a consideration for incapacity. 2nd was that my anti-depressant meds had not had the dosage changed in years therefore no deteriorating factors could be proved.

So presumption for stroke survivors is that at somepoint lets say 365th day post stroke you will be fine but on day 364 you will not be. Who knew!

Medication wise my GP had already stated and was presented to them that i had been on max dosage for years and therefore legally and medically it could not be increased. But there was clear evidence that severe anxiety and depression was evident and supported by counsellor and work OH, independent of each other. GP has referred me to MH Team and Neurology.

In insurers mind and view they also believe that by simply changing jobs to a new employer i would be fine. So no incapacity. Obviously this disregards x3 medical opinions and that no timescale on recovery could be stated. Furthermore my condition has worsened over past 10 months of being off work and so it has not improved by being away from current employer. Also if someone can lend me a Tardis i will just bypass interview and probation period and settle in to a job 6-months from now as like past 10+ months never happened and no lasting effects. Sorted!

To me it was a very lazy, ill conceived. ignorant, reasoning on insurers part and either dismissing med views or not considering them. Meds who i have actually interacted with on many occasions vs desk top exercise by meds from insurers, which surprise surprise trumps meds who are actively involved.

So the fight continues but what has struck me in all of this crap is that yet again the people most in need have to find the energy will power organisational skills to navigate this world on multiple fronts eg health finances relationships work insurers DWP etc etc with virtually no help and out of need to apply for jobs out of financial necessity that the insurers then view that as showing capability but is as a result of them. Attending an interview for an hour does not demonstrate work capability to sustain a 40hr job 5 days a week. Not to mention my own confidence and cognitive functions are diminished and so handicapped prior to attending any interview plus my speech in my mind has been affected ie dysphasia that apparently was cured years ago and is no longer an issue.

So in the insurers minds if they apply one word to everything that proves the capability argument and that most powerful word is “might”. You might be better with another employer, your mh might improve, different environment might make everything ok. So now they are bad fortune tellers. Thus disregarding the last 10 months for example when might didnt exist to more, definitely incapacitated unable to do job rather than might be able to do another job. As humans most people would want the future to be better than the present, so the future might be better is something we wish to be true. However, reality does not seem to matter or be factored in to insurers decision making.

Their concentration is to base decisions on might and is capable and perversely you have to prove that you are incapacitated but even med evidence of this isnt enough.

If i had the strength there is either a new campaign to be had or be active in a current campaign regarding the issues people face in navigating this crap and prejudice that some orgs have towards eg mh and strokes.

Rant over!

For now!!

1 Like
14

Hello@JTC,

One of the biggest problems insurers face, is when their potential clients/policyholders simply do not understanding that an insurance contract is a contract of UTMOST GOOD FAITH, which means that all material facts must be disclosed at the outset, to enable the insurer to consider the risks associated with the proposed contract and to calculate a premium to cover those risks.Now, if a material fact is not disclosed, then the insurer is deprived from calculating a correct premium and it could eventually lead to a High Court Judge having to decide whether an undisclosed fact is material or not.For example,if you had a TIA at age 21 (which you did not disclose) and you are 51 when the insurer discovered the fact, it is probably a most material fact that no judge could ignore in deciding any possible non-disclosure. Let us be clear that ANY non-disclosure gives the insurer to repudiate liability for any claim. Your strokes in 2021 were not "done and dusted " in your insurers eyes and they would not be disregarded by a judge if they had not been disclosed at the outset.

For example, if an insurer asks “Have you ever been admitted to hospital for any condition that entailed an overnight stay”? The key words there are EVER and ANY. Now, if you answer in the negative, it could create problems down the line when the insurer requests your medical records from your GP (as they are perfectly entitled to do)

Now, you say your GP disclosed that you had been on max. dose anti-depressants for years. If your depression was not disclosed at the time your insurance commenced I’m afraid that would be another reason for repudiation of a future claim, as it would probably be a very material fact.

I am sorry I do not have a Tardis for you but I would have to caution you against spending any money on legal cases against your insurer as (from the limited information you have given) you would be wasting it.

I am sorry I cannot be more positive and wish you well in the future.

Regards,

Bob Isle.

1 Like
15

Thanks Bob

My strokes were disclosed pre unconditional offer of employment. Over the course of nearly three years of employment Occ Health have been involved numerous times and disclosure of meds and med conditions have all been recorded plus GP involvement and disclosures made. So nothing has not been disclosed.

The insurance protection is not something i tool out personally its a Group Income Protection so those disclosures are not required as a matter of normal procedure for the insurers however they were and the deteriorating condition was over a period of two years so the stress test on their assumption is the medics document the decline over an extended period and being away from work didnt improve my condition i actually got worse. So evidentially their conclusions can be tested.

In addition, this is not a claim that requires a solicitor. This concerns the insurer and the Financial Ombudsman who will adjudicate and come to a conclusion considering all the evidence and questioning how judgements were made and was all the evidence considered. The FOS website publishes cases already judged on. There is a case which i found without any great indepth research that bares remarkable similarities and you can read how the FOS arrived at their judgement.

In terms of disclosure, that poses an interesting point but in reverse. At no point did the policy become available to me to consult. Even my employer, policy holder could not lay hands on the policy. So to extend that out. The insurer relies on the wording of the policy and tests the evidence you produce against it. You havent received it so how can you present evidence that supports your claim against a policy you have no idea what it says. So you dont know what questions to pose and ask and you cant ask your medics to deliver their medical opinion and answer the insurers needs against a policy you have no sight of. If known you may have completed claim form and subsequent evidence in a different way.

Again the FOS looks at this as well as the might theory vs whats happening now or has happened converting might more to a real time and historic occurrences vs hypothetical scenarios of what might happen. Taking that point further hypothetically a new employer may create a better environment however it may not and it may be worse. Therefore, what medical evidence are insurers relying on that dismisses medical view over eg 2 years and states that since being off the medic evidence shows further deteriation including the residual effects of the strokes versus a snap shot and hypothesises that i might be better elsewhere, where is that medical evidence to arrive at that conclusion narrative etc etc

So disclosure works both ways and something FOS takes in to consideration and in the case i mentioned earlier tested that assumption of the insurers weighing up all the medical evidence. Further they mention strokes as an example of preecisting condition that could worsen the residual effects of the strokes and also using NHS advice / docs where it states that stress depression can make mh condition worse and also the conditions left by the strokes.

So the FOS will test the insurers conclusions against these and many others prior to their judgement.

Im not saying i will win my case but it raises a multitude of questions that you would ask during the actual claim rather then posing them after the insurers decision is issued which shows what evidence they weighted and what it didnt.

Again full disclosure at the start rather than at the end.

1 Like
16

Hello@JTC,

It sounds to me that you are more than capable of presenting your case to FSO, but my advice is to keep it as simple as possible and concentrate on the main issue - disclosure or non-disclosure. Your insurer (IF the case went to Court) would be duty-bound to disclose to you the policy document and any associated matter(proposal form/medical questionnaire/correspondence/job application etc) and I think you could ask FSO to require them to do this. As ALL evidence has to be disclosed by all sides, prior to any hearing.

I wish you every success in your battle.

By the way, IF your employer failed to disclose some material fact to their insurers, they could well be liable in negligence and that this something FSO may consider.

Regards and keep fighting !

Bob Isle.