What’s in YOUR medical file???

There is increasing evidence that Ontario’s auto accident victim’s medical files are being routinely changed to suit the needs of Ontario’s insurers to save money by deflating an MVA victim’s injuries. Portions of reports have been removed, manipulated or even changed entirely without the author’s knowledge or consent. Signatures have been forged or used without permission in many cases. Victims and their legal representatives should be viewing reports and evidence with a critical eye to insurer fraud whether it be an adjuster, an assessor, assessment centers, treatment facility or even your own lawyer’s staff. This abuse of evidence is widespread and should be a major factor in the fight on fraud and yet it isn’t. Accident victims are often re-victimized and defrauded out of the coverage they paid for by the fraudulent acts of others.

******

A leaked document from a discussion forum
I am involved in an Arbitration on the issue of catastrophic impairment where Sibley aka SLR Assessments did the multi-disciplinary assessments for TD Insurance.  Last Thursday, under cross-examination the IE neurologist, Dr. King, testified that large and critically important sections of the report he submitted to Sibley had been removed without his knowledge or consent.  The sections were very favourable to our client.  He never saw the final version of his report which was sent to us and he never signed off on it. more…


Burwash v. Williams, 2014 ONSC 6828 (CanLII) 2014-11-25 http://canlii.ca/t/gfdrp
[10]           The Plaintiffs assert that they had no reason to suspect that Cira was involved in the review, revision and editing of draft expert reports until the examination for discovery of Dr. St. Pierre when answers and subsequent productions indicated that Cira may be using third parties to review and revise the Defendants’ expert reports.
[24]           The Plaintiffs provided documents that indicate that there may have been third party manipulation and alteration of the expert reports that the Defendants will rely upon at trial. Relevancy is established since this issue goes straight to the heart of the Plaintiffs’ case and the medical evidence they intend to lead to prove damages. more…

MC v KE, 2013 CanLII 55435 (ON HPARB),  2013-09-04  http://canlii.ca/t/g0c3g
10.              However, the Committee did express concern about the information uncovered during the course of the investigation related to Riverfront having altered the Respondent’s report. The Committee noted the “egregious” impact that these changes could have had on the Applicant’s entitlement to benefits. In the result, the Committee decided to offer advice to the Respondent about the importance of ensuring that she personally reviews and approves any assessment report she completes prior to the report being issued. more…

Macdonald v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2006 CanLII 41669 (ON SC) — 2006-12-13 http://canlii.ca/t/1q596
[1]            In the course of this jury trial I ruled that Dr. Frank Lipson, who had conducted a defence medical of the plaintiff, not be permitted to testify as an expert witness on behalf of the defence. Dr. Lipson had testified that a medical report purportedly signed by him had not been signed by him.  He stated that his signature stamp had been affixed to the report without his authority by an individual at Riverfront Medical Evaluations Limited (Riverfront) thecompany who had retained him to conduct the defence medical. I made my ruling based on the evidence before me at the time. The case proceeded and the jury ultimately delivered a verdict awarding the plaintiff damages and that verdict has not been appealed. However, in view of the serious allegations that had been made against Riverfront I felt that Riverfront should be given an opportunity to respond before I delivered the full reasons for my ruling. Subsequent to the conclusion at the trial, counsel for Riverfront appeared before me and called evidence and made submissions. more…

FSCO Minutes - March 25, 2011 – 5. “Doctored” Reports:
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/drs/counselforum/Pages/2011-03-25.aspx
Senior Arbitrator Nastasi reported that a recent unit meeting arbitrators reported two separate hearings in which in the middle of testimony by a doctor or assessor, it became clear that the report issued / produced by the Clinic or assessor was not the same report created by the doctor / assessor on the witness stand. Liz put the issue out to the group to assess whether this has been a recent issue or new trend that counsel have also experienced. more…

So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-Off

by Jokelee Vanderkop  http://www.deniedbenefitclaims.com/index.html

pg 144-146 - 'Preparing for Court' - Only with his prodding did I take a closer look and was shocked to see that the signature was not mine although the typed name under it was. I was now more alert. I had never seen this letter despite my name being on it. The content of the letter had, most likely, been innocuously presented by the car insurer's claims advisor to Mr. K.'s legal clerk to type up and  sign in my name, possibly under the guise of saving me a trip to their office to sign it and speed up my getting the funds. The insurer dealt with her for this transaction, rather than her boss, probably counting on her not being up to speed on the legalities. more...

Source: http://www.fairassociation.ca/