Don't become the victim of an insurer "Doctor Shopping"

Written on the 14 July 2010 by Gavin Hanrahan

What is Doctor Shopping?

If you're involved in a motor vehicle accident or injured at work and make a personal injury claim, expect the insurance company to require you to see one of their doctors for examination. You may hear these reviews being referred to as 'independent medical examinations' (IME).

Requiring an examination by a doctor is quite common and shouldn't be a problem, in fact, it's actually quite reasonable for the insurance company to request this before they agree to pay your personal injury claim.

What is unreasonable is when the insurance company doesn't like or validate the doctor's opinion and they arrange for you to be seen by another doctor, in an attempt to try and find a doctor who will make a diagnosis that is more in their favour. Some insurers will even continue this process multiple times until they receive a doctor's opinion that will allow them to legally refuse to pay your claim. This is known as "Doctor Shopping".

The law can be quite vague when it comes to stopping insurance companies who are 'Doctor Shopping', especially since its common practice for an insurance company to request that you seek an IME from time to time (at reasonable intervals, for example yearly). If you think the insurance company is requesting that you seek too many IMEs, or they are requesting them at unreasonable time intervals (monthly), you should immediately refuse to attend the IME and give us a call to discuss your options. We will be able to determine if the insurance company is acting appropriately or not, and take action against them if they are acting unethically by not adhering to the law.

Too often we get contacted by clients for advice after they have already attended numerous doctors for the insurer and unfortunately in these circumstances the damage has been done.

Don't let this happen to you! If an insurance company contacts you for the purpose of attending one of its doctors for an IME, contact us immediately and we'll let you know if you are required to attend the appointment.


For any advice and assistance related to stopping insurance companies from doctor shopping, or personal injury claims, please call our Compensation & Insurance Claims team on 1800 994 279 or email us. A member of our team will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within 24 hours.


Author: Gavin Hanrahan
About: Gavin Hanrahan is the Managing Partner of Turnbull Hill Lawyers and the Partner-in-Charge of our Business, Commercial & Workplace Team. He advises clients on a broad range of business, workplace and HR issues, ranging from employment contracts to risk management. As one of the leading business lawyers in NSW, Gavin speaks to local business owners every day and understands both the needs and difficulties of launching, managing and growing a business. Our clients appreciate his practical, personal and solutions-orientated approach and his ability to respond to legal issues that are currently impacting businesses all over NSW.
Connect via: Twitter Google+ LinkedIn

Contact Us Now

We respond in 24 hours or less

Please provide details regarding your matter so we can assist you

Enquiry Form

Fill out our enquiry form and we'll respond within 24 hours

Listen to the captcha
 
Publications

Cyber harassment, cyber stalking and cyber bullying: the offences and penalties

Note: If an individual is exposed to cyber bullying, cyber stalking and/or cyber harassment the matter should be reported to NSW Police. The Laws Cyber bullying, cyber stalking and cyber harassment has increased in focus due to technological advancements and the ease of anonymity on the internet. Since 2015 all NSW police offices h...

Read More ...

The Unfair Dismissal High Income Threshold Explained

Updated - Jun, 2016 The high income threshold for unfair dismissals refers to the highest possible income an employee can have, unless they are covered by an award or enterprise agreement, before they are excluded from making an unfair dismissal claim against their organisation. This threshold applies under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ...

Read More ...

Man not wearing seat belt has his $1.5 million payout reduced by 25% for contributory negligence

In August 2011, a male aged 35 (the Plaintiff) was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident that led to him sustaining a number of catastrophic injuries. At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by his, which had been driven by his friend (the Defendant). Prior to the motor vehicle accident, ...

Read More ...

Woman injured by an unidentified motor vehicle suffers over $500,000 worth of losses

In April 2016 a judge of the district Court of New South Wales determined the claim for compensation of a young woman who was injured on her daily ride to work. The claimant, a female recruiter aged 32 (the Plaintiff) left her apartment early on the morning of 25 October 2011, intending to ride her scooter to the gym before heading to wor...

Read More ...

Court finds that the prongs of a pallet jack created a foreseeable risk of injury to customer

Introduction A woman injured while shopping for strawberries in an Aldi supermarket has had her judgment in the District Court upheld on appeal in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that Aldi was negligent in placing a pallet jack across an aisle creating a foreseeable risk of injury, The Facts ...

Read More ...

Previous | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next


Events
Blogs
"John, just a quick note to thank you for the ex...

John & Lyn F

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

enquiries@turnbullhill.com.au