Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbilee
He was saying that it wasn't the most likely explanation for my injuries but that sometimes people have an injury more severe than the physical evidence would indicate and that I might be one of those, who knows.
I don't think I was concussed in the second accident, but it's hard to remember how I was feeling.
Hockey, this appointment is for the insurance so I won't be seeing him for any other reason, possibly seeing him once again.
Ash, yes I did, he knows the doctor I'm seeing, said she's excellent and exactly the right person for me to see and I should focus on the NHS route re advice, treatment etc and not focus on the insurance path.
Also, he's paid by my side of the insurance, not the other side, does that make a difference?
]
|
I've been down the litigation road, so I feel your pain.
No, this doctor IS NOT more trustworthy because he works for your insurer. ALL insurers have a broader interest in depressing claims. They aren't supposed to work together, but they do.
I guarantee that the written report this doctor submits will contain none of the qualifiers about some people having injuries beyond what the mechanism of injury might suggest. It will just say that you're a malingering, psycho case.
For EVERTYTHING that comes from either insurance company, you need a counter opinion from an independent source. Otherwise, the insurance rubbish (which is what it is) will stand as the official assessment.
It can be good to get out ahead of them. My lawyer had my neuro-psych done BEFORE they had a chance to order theirs. I had one of the most respected specialists in the country. Her report was so devastating, and her expertise so unassailable, that they decided to settle.
What I'm saying is that I hope you have a lawyer who tries to set the agenda, rather than just reacting to what they other sides does. To win an MVA case, you need a lawyer who's a pit bull, not a poodle.
Good Luck