When a court examines the justification for a long-term disability claim, it studies the doctors’ opinions and the results from medical tests. It also tries to evaluate the credibility of the testimony from the person that has submitted the request for long term disability coverage.
A court might turn to the insurance company for assistance with determining the credibility of the given testimony. Insurance companies know how to take advantage of their role in providing the court with useful information.
How an insurance company might try to diminish the level of clarity in a policy holder’s credibility?
• It looks for gaps in the treatment provided to the man or woman that has sought disability coverage.
• It searches for examples of unclear imaging or ambiguous results.
• It conducts a surveillance campaign.
• It focuses on the report from the physician that conducted the exam that was ordered by the insurance company.
• It relies heavily on the opinion of its own expert, regarding the plaintiff’s condition.
Steps to be taken by policy holders that want to convince a court of their credibility:
It is not always evident in the minutes following an accident, that the victim has sustained the sort of injury that can lead to a long-term disability. For that reason, any victim of an accident should see a doctor as soon as possible. A personal injury lawyer in Cornwall knows that a victim’s failure to do so can be used as grounds for denying requested coverage.
Obtain some type of booklet that can be used for creating a journal. Keep track of all the times when you experience a debilitating pain. Record how long that pain lasts. This serves as the best proof of any claims, regarding a painful sensation in some body part that got injured during the accident.
Hire a lawyer. Lawyers understand how to counter an argument that questions a client’s credibility. A lawyer might be able to explain the reason for the gaps in treatment and ensure that all the required documents are submitted. They should be able to counter the opinion of the insurer’s expert with the opinion of the lawyer’s own expert.
A lawyer might be able to account for a client’s actions during a period of surveillance. At some point, a given client might feel eager to test how the ongoing treatment has improved the level of his or her capabilities. Indeed, a client might carry-out such a test during a time when that same client was being watched by a surveillance camera. Obviously, such an experiment could look suspicious to the insurer. All of the evidences and documents pertaining to the case should be scrutinized by the lawyer before submission.