Why and How Insurers Accuse the Injured Party of Faking Their Injuries
By: Richard H. Adler, Attorney at Law
When the facts and law of a case do not favor the insurance company,
they often resort to accusing the injured person of faking their
injuries or ‘playing the system’ as a way to undermine that party’s
compensation rights. Insurers have perfected their methods of raising
suspicion or innuendo against the credibility of the injured party.
Here are a few approaches and positions insurers use time and again.
A. The Secondary Gain Argument
The insurer will claim that ‘the patient is motivated to seek health
care only to get a bigger settlement. If it weren’t for the prospect of
winning a personal injury claim, this person would have been fine long
ago. Being hurt is working for them - they think it will get them more
money.’ In other words, many insurers argue that an injured person is
simply trying to bilk the system for their own monetary or secondary
gain.
There are several published studies that refute this argument. One
such study appeared in the June 26, 2001 issue of Neurology, the
scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology. The study,
“Handicap After Acute Whiplash Injury, a 1-year Prospective Study of
Risk Factors,” concluded that “initiation of [a] lawsuit within [the] first month after injury did not influence recovery.”
This study examined 141 Danish patients who were involved in rear-end
car collisions. All patients had gone to the emergency room with
complaints of neck pain or headaches within two days of their accidents.
The authors found that having a claim was not related to the length
of care or recovery; and that specific pain complaints of headaches,
neck pain, and range of motion were the best indicators of the length of
treatment following a whiplash injury.
B. Litigation Neurosis
Similar to the “secondary gain” argument, insurers will argue that
personal injury claims or lawsuits are the result of “litigation
neurosis.”
The term “litigation neurosis” became popular following Dr. Henry
Miller's 1961 study. Dr. Miller, a prominent British neurologist,
reported on 200 head injury patients with long-term subjective
complaints whose cases were still under insurance review. Based on his
conclusion that 24% of his patients with worker's compensation and
personal injury claims were suffering from psychoneurotic complaints
with no organic basis, many patients have subsequently been labeled as
neurotic in one form or another. In Miller's view, only persons with
the opportunity for compensation developed post-concussion syndrome.
All but four of the 45 cases returned to work after their claims were
settled. Therefore, Miller concluded that settlement of the claim
helped them return to work.1
Miller's work has received rigorous and growing criticism over the
years. Nevertheless, his article remains surprisingly influential in
medical-legal circles today, predominantly used as leverage by insurers,
insurance defense attorneys, and IME examiners who argue that patients
claiming post-concussive syndrome or residuals from musculoskeletal
injuries suffer from a functional (psychological) problem rather than
real, organic, physical pain.
Here is how the insurer will use this argument particularly when
responding to cervical, thoracic, lumbar and concussion type injuries
from a motor vehicle collision since the injured person often presents
with symptoms of forgetfulness, irritability, cognitive deficits,
sleeping difficulties, headaches, visual disturbances, neck and/or low
back pain, physicians may be hard-pressed to account for these symptoms
on an objective basis. In some cases, the doctors hired by the
insurance company to conduct insurance medical examinations (IMEs)
simply label the injured party with “litigation neurosis” when a
physical exam or imaging test fails to produce objective evidence of
injury.
Recent research, however, has provided compelling evidence that such
subjective complaints arise from organic and objective injuries, though
hard to see on common imaging tests such as X-ray, MRI, or CT Scan.
A research article by Arthur Croft, DC in the Journal of
Neuromusculoskeletal System, conducted an exhaustive review of all
literature concerning “litigation neurosis.” Dr. Croft's review of the
published research studies provides compelling evidence that the terms
“litigation neurosis” or “compensation neurosis” should be abandoned.
According to Dr. Croft, the literature indicates:
- In 1965, dePalma and Subin reported that only 25% of 386 of their
patients became involved in litigation and the treatment outcome was no
different in the litigation and non-litigation groups.
- In 1968, Schutt and Dohanv published their analysis of women injured
in whiplash type accidents and reported no significant difference in
the prevalence of symptoms in patients with pending litigation versus
those whose litigation had been resolved.
-
Hohl, in 1974, found that in litigated cases, those whose claims were
settled after 18 months had a worse prognosis than those settling in the
first six months. Predictably, prolonged treatment will be correlated
with protracted litigation and a worse prognosis. However, of the
non-litigated group, only 50% were found to be asymptomatic at a
five-year follow-up period.
- In 1988, Maimaris, et al., published the results of their
retrospective study of 102 whiplash patients and concluded that
litigation did not influence the natural progression of symptoms since
all litigating patients were symptomatic for 2 to 2 ½ years following
injury, even though the average time until settlement was nine months.
-
Hodgson and Grundy, in 1989, reported on a group of 40 patients who had
been injured in a whiplash trauma (26 had been exposed to rear impact
trauma). The follow-up period varied from 10 to 15 years. The 30
patients who remained unchanged since settlement provided more evidence
that resolution of symptoms does not always follow settlement of legal
claims.
- In 1991, Watkinson et al., evaluated a group of individuals
suffering from cervical acceleration/deceleration soft tissue injuries.
They found that 86% were continuing to complain of symptoms after a
mean follow-up period of 10.8 years. The study argued that the
increased symptomatic degenerative changes noted on cervical spine
x-rays after 10 years refutes the notion of compensation neurosis and
argues for an organic lesion.
- Pennie and Agambar in 1991, reported that no statistically
significant correlation existed in the recovery between litigated and
non-litigated cases of cervical acceleration/deceleration injuries.
This finding is echoed by Parmar and Raymakers (1993), who wrote that
their group of 100 patients was followed for a mean of eight years after
injury. The majority of their cases were free of significant pain
before the settlement of their claims and only four improved soon after
settlement.
- In 1993, Robinson and Cassar-Pullicino published that the majority
of their cases (86%) ranging from 10 to 19 years after injury remained
symptomatic after settlement.
Understanding how and why insurers use and misuse labels as
“secondary gain,” “faker,” and “litigations neurosis,” is an important
element in preventing them from wrongfully denying legitimate claims for
physical, economic, and emotional recovery.
In today’s environment we see insurers more interested in pushing
cases into litigation than trying to resolve claims for fair and
reasonable compensation. In alignment with this aggressive litigation
posture, we also see insurers resorting to attacks on the credibility of
the injured party more frequently.
If your patient is involved in a traumatic injury claim, we recommend
a legal consultation so that they can be informed of some of the
‘unwritten rules’ in how their claim will be processed and viewed. An
ounce of prevention and advice, will save them unnecessary stressful
encounters with insurers. If we can help, simply have him/her give us a
call for a complimentary consultation.
1. See British Medical Journal, 1961, Vol. 1, pp. 919-925 and 992-998
Do you have more questions this page did not answer?
Email page to yourself or a friend
Print This Page
Add to any service
PS. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy/Terms of Service | Contact | 206.682.0300
Getting Started: Frequently Asked Questions