Good grief Kev

There are plenty of research papers where they state that there is no known cure for the condition, and that it comes down to pain management for patients whose symptoms spread and/or continue after the first year. (I'm sure you know that and that you put it in your evidence). How on earth can they have decided it is not permanent?

I suppose the problem, as always, comes in the wording....I suspect that often it is stated as 'at present, there is no known cure, and the condition may become permanent for some patients' or similar. 'It is not always permanent' is carte blanche for a court to decide it is 'never permanent'. Grr.

This stuff drives me mad. How dare they?! It's just about being mean and not wanting to pay out, and the job of their lawyers is simply to admit nothing that might cost them money, and to find any tiny shred of an idea that might rubbish what the claimant is saying, and then blow that up into a huge deal. Utter utter utter ********.

Keep fighting Kev.

Bram.