Tag Archives: Independent Medical Exam

How Long Does It Take to Get Benefits? – Part 2

In an ideal world, you’d receive a favorable decision and your first benefit check shortly after your policy’s elimination period is satisfied.  Unfortunately, even wholly legitimate claims get scrutinized, questioned, delayed, and in some cases, denied.  Below are a few common reasons benefit payments are delayed, particularly at the outset of a claim.

1. Improperly Completed/Partially Completed Forms

If your initial claim forms are missing information, unreadable, or incomplete, your insurer will likely issue additional forms for completion or use the missing information as an excuse to delay processing the claim.  This applies to both the forms that you are required to complete and sign and the forms the insurer gives you to give to your doctor to fill out, so it is important to follow up with your doctor and make sure that all of the necessary forms are completed and returned in a timely fashion.  If you do not carefully document your claim, and you do not promptly respond to requests for follow-up information, most insurers will delay making a claim decision until you provide them with the requested information.

2. Pending Requests for Information

At the outset of your claim, your insurer will require you to sign an authorization that allows them to request a wide range of information from a wide range of sources, including your doctors and employer.  Oftentimes, the insurer will request information from these other sources (without telling you) and then will delay making a decision on your claim if any of these requests remain pending.

This means that even if you provide the insurance company with everything they requested from you, there may be other information that the company is waiting that is holding up the claims decision.  Consequently, it’s important to ask the insurance company to find out if there are any pending requests, adn then follow up with your doctors, employers, etc. as needed to ensure that the information is provided.

It’s also important to keep tabs on the pending requests, to determine whether the scope of the insurer’s investigation is appropriate.  An experienced disability attorney can advise you on whether a particular request for information is warranted under the circumstances of your particular claim.

3. Failure to Schedule Medical Examinations/Interviews

When you file a disability claim, insurers will almost always require that you participate in a detailed interview and/or undergo an independent medical examination (IME).  While the stated point of these requests is to confirm or verify your disability, they can often be an attempt by your insurer to discredit your own doctor or medical records and generate fodder to deny your claim.  Depending on the nature of your condition, your insurer might also request other types of interviews or exams—such as a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) or neuropsychological evaluation.

Some claimants (mistakenly) believe that if they keep putting off these exams, then they’ll be able to avoid the exams.  However, most disability policies contain a provision that expressly requires the policyholder to submit to exams, and states that failure to do so is grounds for denying a claim or terminating benefits.  So if you put off these exams, it’s only going to delay the company’s claim decision, and possibly result in a claim denial.  However, keep in mind that going into a medical examination, IME, or interview unprepared can be just as bad for your claim, so it’s very important to prepare beforehand.  Once again, an experienced disability attorney can advise you regarding the proper scope of an interview or IME, and can also be present for the interview or IME, if desired.

 

What is a Neuropsychological Evaluation? – Part 4

This is the last post in our series of posts about neuropsychological evaluations.  We will conclude this series by discussing (1) why an insurance company would ask for an exam, and (2) how a neuropsychological evaluation can impact your disability claim.

Why Would My Insurer Ask for a Neuropsychological Evaluation?

Unfortunately, it is way too common for an insurer to look for ways to deny a claim, even in the face of strong medical proof of a disability.  This can be especially true for conditions or disabilities that are more subjective than objective, or disabilities that include symptoms that cannot be definitely shown by commonly administered medical tests.  An insurer intent on denying a claim may use Independent Medical Evaluations (IMEs), Functional Capacity Examinations (FCEs), Neuropsychological Evaluations, or a combination of these three exams, in its efforts to undercut a policyholder’s own doctor’s evaluation and medical records (particularly if the policyholder’s treating doctor is supportive of the claim and has clearly indicated that the policyholder should not return to work in their own occupation).

As we discussed previously, the limitations inherent in neuropsychological evaluations may lead to a conclusion that you are less cognitively impaired than you truly are, and/or a recommendation that you are able to return to work.  Further, if the test is administered by a biased evaluator, results can be interpreted and manipulated in order to deny your claim.

What Can I Do?

First, make sure that your insurance company can actually require a neuropsychological examination under the terms of your policy.  Some policies include provisions requiring that claimants undergo “medical exams” or exams “conducted by a physician.”  If your policy contained this sort of provision, you could potentially argue that the insurance company cannot require you to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation, since a neuropsychologist is not a physician, and this sort of exam is not strictly a “medical exam.”

If you must undergo the evaluation, there are several steps you can proactively take to prevent the examination from unfairly complicating or jeopardizing you claim, many of which are similar to steps you should take before an IME.

  • Be sure to provide complete medical records.
  • Carefully fill out any intake paperwork.
  • Advise your medical team of the request for the evaluation.
  • Take notes, including what questions were asked during the interview portion of the evaluation.
  • Report back to your medical team after the test, especially regarding any negative effects, such as increased fatigue after the evaluation.
  • Request a copy of the report.

It is important to note that neuropsychological evaluations are not inherently biased or a poor indicator of disability.  In fact, they can actually be helpful in confirming your disability and demonstrate an impaired level of functioning that makes it impossible to return to work.  In some instances, you may wish to undergo an exam with a truly independent examiner, either proactively or as a follow up to one ordered by your insurer.  As with any new evaluation or course of treatment, you should carefully discuss this option with your current medical team and attorney, and obtain recommendations to a reputable evaluator.

Sources:

Atif B. Malike, MD; Chief Editor, et al., Neuropsychological Evaluation, Medscape, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/317596-overview, updated May 18, 2017.

Neuropsychological Evaluation FAQ, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Department of Neurology, https://www.med.unc.edu/neurology/divisions/movement-disorders/npsycheval

Kathryn Wilder Schaaf, PhD, et al, Frequently Asked Questions About Neuropsychological Evaluation, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwir3pKk__fUAhUBEmMKHenkDzsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tbinrc.com%2FWebsites%2Ftbinrcnew%2Fimages%2FNeuropsych_FAQ.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG0Mv3o17ZrNmXuDN5ITUIh4fWYtA&cad=rja

What is a Neuropsychological Evaluation? – Part 2

In our last post, we looked at what a neuropsychological evaluation is, and how it can be used as a tool to identify cognitive impairments.  In this post we will talking about how a neuropsychological evaluation works in more detail.

What Can I Expect During a Neuropsychological Evaluation?

A neuropsychological evaluation will generally consist of (1) a review of your medical and other records (this could include your insurance claim file); (2) an interview with you and sometimes another person such as a family member or caregiver who knows you well, (especially if your disability impacts your ability to self-report); and (3) the administration of tests that measure both your mood and abilities.

The evaluation will typically begin with an interview and then proceed to testing.  The tests will be both written and oral, and vary in length and complexity.  Often the tests will be administered by a specially trained technician, or a psychometrist.  The typical evaluation takes between two to five hours to complete, but can stretch up to eight hours and/or be split into two sessions.  Conditions such as fatigue or motor impairments can slow down the process.

The results will generally be presented in a report that includes a summary of the tests conducted, a summary of your key medical and personal history, your current issues (i.e. the reason the neuropsychological exam was requested), the results of the testing, how these results compare to other people with your background, and a list of recommendations.  As explained previously, these recommendations can help indicate the need for additional treatment, suggest treatment options, and/or provide information on cognitive deficiencies and resulting physical and mental limitations.

The evaluation is designed to assess your knowledge, functioning, and skills at the time of the exam. Because of this, it is not the sort of test that you would “study” for, in the same sense that you would study for, say, an academic exam.  However, if you are going to be undergoing a neuropsychological exam, evaluators typically recommend that you:

  • Get a good night’s sleep
  • Put forth your best effort
  • Provide a list of all medications and take all medication as normally scheduled, unless instructed otherwise
  • Bring a friend or family member if you have trouble relating information about your history (for the interview portion of the examination)
  • Make sure the evaluator has access to your medical records
  • Do not consume alcohol or other illicit substances within the 24 hours prior to the evaluation
  • Notify the examiner of excessive fatigue, psychological distress, or frequent changes in your ability to move

Our next posts in this series will address the reliability of neuropsychological examinations and why your insurance company may ask for one.

Sources:

Atif B. Malike, MD; Chief Editor, et al., Neuropsychological Evaluation, Medscape, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/317596-overview, updated May 18, 2017.

Neuropsychological Evaluation FAQ, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Department of Neurology, https://www.med.unc.edu/neurology/divisions/movement-disorders/npsycheval

Kathryn Wilder Schaaf, PhD, et al, Frequently Asked Questions About Neuropsychological Evaluation, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwir3pKk__fUAhUBEmMKHenkDzsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tbinrc.com%2FWebsites%2Ftbinrcnew%2Fimages%2FNeuropsych_FAQ.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG0Mv3o17ZrNmXuDN5ITUIh4fWYtA&cad=rja

What is a Neuropsychological Evaluation? – Part 1

We’ve talked before about how your insurance company may require you to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) by a physician of their choosing and how they may also ask for a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE).

Neuropsychological evaluations are another tool insurers utilize when investigating disability claims.  A neuropsychological evaluation is also something that a claimant filing a disability claim may choose to undergo independently, to provide additional proof of his or her disability.  In this series of posts, we will be talking about what a neuropsychological evaluation is, what to expect during an examination, and how an exam could affect your claim.

What is a Neuropsychological Evaluation?

Neuropsychology is the study of the relationship between the brain and behavior.  A neuropsychological evaluation is a method of testing where a neuropsychologist seeks to obtain data about a subject’s cognitive, behavioral, linguistic, motor, and executive functioning in order to identify changes that are, often, the result of a disease or injury.  The evaluation can lead to the diagnosis of a cognitive deficit or the confirmation of a diagnosis, as well as provide differential diagnoses.

Neuropsychological evaluations are most often associated with conditions that exhibit cognitive dysfunctions, such as

Conditions such as those enumerated above often have symptoms that vary person by person, and the amount of cognitive impairment can often not be fully assessed by other diagnostic tools such as an MRI, or a traditional psychological evaluation.

Neuropsychological tests are standardized tests that are given and scored in a similar manner each time they are used.  The tests are designed to evaluate the following:

  • Intellectual Functioning
  • Academic Achievement
  • Language Processing
  • Visuospatial Processing
  • Attention/Concentration
  • Verbal Learning and Memory
  • Executive Functions
  • Speed of Processing
  • Sensory-Perceptual Functions
  • Motor Speed and Strength
  • Motivation
  • Personality

There are many different accepted tests for each domain listed above.  Accordingly, an examiner will likely not perform every test, but rather select tests from each category that will best evaluate the particular question posed by the referrer.

The goal of these neuropsychological tests is to produce raw data.  The results are then evaluated by comparing test scores to healthy individuals of a similar background (age, education, gender, ethnic background, etc.) and to expected levels of cognitive functioning.  The data is then interpreted by the neuropsychologist, and perhaps other providers, to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the subject’s brain, provide suggestions for potential treatment options, set a standard for any future testing, evaluate a course of treatment, make recommendations on steps and modifications that can improve daily living, and evaluate whether a subject can return to work with or without modifications.

In our next post we will go look at what you can expect during a neurospychological evaluation.

Sources:

Atif B. Malike, MD; Chief Editor, et al., Neuropsychological Evaluation, Medscape, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/317596-overview, updated May 18, 2017.

Neuropsychological Evaluation FAQ, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Department of Neurology, https://www.med.unc.edu/neurology/divisions/movement-disorders/npsycheval

Kathryn Wilder Schaaf, PhD, et al, Frequently Asked Questions About Neuropsychological Evaluation, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwir3pKk__fUAhUBEmMKHenkDzsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tbinrc.com%2FWebsites%2Ftbinrcnew%2Fimages%2FNeuropsych_FAQ.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG0Mv3o17ZrNmXuDN5ITUIh4fWYtA&cad=rja

Exertion Levels: What They Are, and Why They Matter

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) contains definitions of various exertion levels that are used to place different jobs within categories based on the level of strength required to perform each job. You may have noticed these categories listed on claim forms, or referred to in functional capacity evaluation (FCE) reports or independent medical evaluations (IME) reports. In this post, we are going to look at what the various exertion levels are, and why they matter.

What Are the Exertion Levels?

The DOT lists five exertion levels—sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. The DOT definitions for each exertion level are summarized below.

Sedentary Work (S)

Occasionally (i.e. up to 1/3 of the time) exerting up to 10 pounds of force and/or frequently (i.e. from 1/3 to 2/3 of the time) exerting a negligible amount of force to lift, carry, push, pull, or otherwise move objects, including the human body. Sedentary work involves sitting most of the time, but may involve occasional walking or standing for brief periods of time.

Light Work (L)

Occasionally exerting up to 20 pounds of force, and/or frequently exerting up to 10 pounds of force, and/or constantly (i.e. 2/3 or more of the time) exerting a negligible amount of force to move objects. Requires walking or standing to a significant degree, requires sitting most of the time but also involves pushing and/or pulling of arm or leg controls, and/or requires working at a production rate pace entailing the constant pushing and/or pulling of materials even though the weight of those materials is negligible.

Medium Work (M)

Occasionally exerting 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or frequently exerting 10 to 25 pounds of force, and/or constantly exerting greater than negligible up to 10 pounds of force to move objects.

Heavy Work (H)

Occasionally exerting 50 to 100 pounds of force, and/or frequently exerting 25 to 50 pounds of force, and/or constantly exerting 10 to 20 pounds of force to move objects.

Very Heavy Work (V)

Occasionally exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force, and/or frequently exerting more than 50 pounds of force, and/or constantly exerting more than 20 pounds of force to move objects.

Why Do They Matter?

Insurers usually rely on the DOT exertion levels in ERISA claims or cases involving “any occupation” policies. First, the insurer will seek to establish that the claimant can work at the highest level of capacity possible. Then, the insurer will claim that the claimant can return to work performing any job within that category, and any lower categories.

Conversely, if the case involves an “own occupation” policy, the insurer will seek to establish that the claimant’s occupation required the lowest level of capacity. The insurer will then assert that the claimant’s disability is not severe enough to prevent the claimant from returning to his or her old job.

In either case, if the insurer feels that it can demonstrate that a claimant is capable of returning to work, it will likely deny the claim for benefits, or terminate existing benefits.

References:

http://www.occupationalinfo.org/appendxc_1.html

Case Study: Can You Sue Your Insurer For Emotional Distress?

At least one court thinks so. In Daie v. The Reed Grp., Ltd.[1], the claimant was denied long term disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Instead of merely asking the court to reverse the denial of benefits (a result that can be difficult to achieve under ERISA), claimant filed a complaint in state court alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The claimant asserted that the insurer “repeatedly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the aim of forcing plaintiff to drop his claim and return to work.”  Id. More specifically, the claimant alleged that the insurer had falsely claimed the claimant was “lying” about his disability and “exaggerating” his symptoms. Id. According to the claimant, the insurer had also urged claimant to take “experimental medications,” induced claimant to “increase his medications,” forced claimant “to undergo a litany of rigorous medical examinations without considering their results,” and pressured claimant “to engage in further medical testing that it knew would cause . . . pain, emotional distress and anxiety.” Id.

The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that ERISA preempted claimant from bringing the state law claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss for two reasons. First, the court determined that the claim was based on “harassing and oppressive conduct independent of the duties of administering an ERISA plan.” Id. Second, the court determined the insurer had a “duty not to engage in the alleged tortious conduct” that existed “independent of defendants’ duties under the ERISA plan.”  Id.

The federal court then sent the case back to state court, where, as of the date of this post, the state court has not yet determined whether claimant should be awarded damages for emotional distress.

At this point, this ruling has only been adopted by the District Court, and not the Court of Appeals, so it is not binding upon other courts. However, it could potentially persuade other courts to recognize similar claims. It will be interesting to see how many other courts follow suit, and whether this ruling will ultimately be adopted by courts at the appellate level.

[1] No. C 15-03813 WHA, 2015 WL 6954915, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015).

Disability Claim Investigation: What Can My Insurance Company Do?

What your disability insurance company can do when it is investigating a claim largely depends on your specific circumstances and the language in your policy, but there are some common tactics that Arizona courts will often allow – and some they will not.

What the disability insurance company can do

  1. Audit your tax returns and billing records
  2. Review your medical files
  3. Use a private investigator to conduct video and photograph surveillance
  4. Look at your public Facebook profile and pictures
  5. Follow you on Twitter
  6. Order an Independent Medical Exam
  7. Have an insurance company doctor opine about your disability
  8. Ask for a Functional Capacity Evaluation
  9. Contact your treating physician
  10. Schedule face-to-face interviews with you
  11. Interview your family, friends, co-workers and employees
  12. Demand precise quantifications of your time spent in every professional activity pre- and post-disability
  13. Pay your claim under a reservation of rights

What the disability insurance company cannot do

  1. Impose requirements on you that are not in your policy
  2. Attempt to influence the opinions of independent medical examiners
  3. Misrepresent policy provisions
  4. Conduct abusive interviews
  5. Unfairly delay a decision on your claim
  6. Fail to conduct a timely, adequate investigation of your disability claim
  7. Destroy key documents
  8. Lie about actions taken on a claim
  9. Place their financial interests ahead of your contractual rights
  10. Force you to litigate by offering an unreasonably low lump-sum buyout

When it comes to claims investigation, disability insurance companies often skirt the limits of what they can legally do. If you think your insurer might be acting in bad faith, contact an attorney to protect your disability benefits.

May is Disability Insurance Awareness Month — A Good Time To Ask Yourself If You Can Collect on Your Disability Insurance Policy

May 2011 is Disability Insurance Awareness Month.  While the insurance industry likes to increase awareness of purchasing disability insurance, medical professionals who long ago purchased disability insurance and have been paying premiums on disability policies for many years may opt to instead raise their awareness of the obstacles they are likely to encounter should they ever need to make a claim on their disability insurance policy.  The article below by disability insurance attorney Edward O. Comitz provides some food for thought.

DISABILITY INSURANCE: CAN YOU COLLECT UNDER YOUR POLICY?

By: Edward O. Comitz, Esq.

You have practiced medicine for your entire career. Your spouse and children rely on you, and you have numerous financial obligations. The stress and trauma of a disability can cause you significant problems. To protect yourself in case of total or partial disability, you have purchased disability insurance.

Unfortunately, you suffer an injury or become so ill that you cannot continue your practice, and you then file a claim with your insurance agent. Of course, you expect it to be honored. Instead, shortly thereafter, you are contacted by an insurance adjuster, not your agent. Unlike your agent, the insurance adjuster is hostile; the questions he asks imply that you are malingering. You try to be cooperative, providing the insurance adjuster with the additional information he requests, but again your claim is denied. Adding insult to injury, you learn from the adjuster that the insurance company has secretly videotaped your activities and, based on the tapes, believes that you are not disabled at all. Dumbfounded by the insurance company’s response, you ask yourself if there is anything that you can do to make the insurance company pay the benefits it promised. The answer is yes.

Typically, the type of policy that medical and dental professionals purchase is what is known as an “own occupation policy.” Such policies provide compensation following a disability that prevents the insured (the person who purchased the policy) from performing the particular duties of his or her profession. Thus, the insured may be entitled to benefits even if he or she could in fact perform work of a different nature. For example, if a surgeon purchases an “own occupation policy” and severely injures his hand, but could nevertheless perform some or all of the duties of a general practitioner, the surgeon is considered disabled under an “own occupation policy” and entitled to benefits.

Disability provisions greatly vary in the language used, and coverage is often circumscribed and restricted by qualifying words and phrases. Accordingly, each policy of insurance must be individually reviewed to determine whether a particular claim is covered. What may appear to be an “own occupation policy” could in fact be an “occupational policy” if “total disability” is defined to include the insured’s inability to perform “all” duties or “every” duty pertaining to the insured’s occupation. In such a case, the insured may not be entitled to benefits if he or she can perform comparable employment for which the person is suited by education, experience and physical condition. Continue reading May is Disability Insurance Awareness Month — A Good Time To Ask Yourself If You Can Collect on Your Disability Insurance Policy

Senate Finance Committee Hearing Held to Discuss Abuses in Long-Term Disability Insurance Industry

On September 28, 2010, the United States Senate Finance Committee held a full committee hearing titled, “Do Private Long-Term Disability Policies Provide the Protection They Promise?”  At the hearing, the Finance Committee and expert witnesses discussed the sometimes abusive practices of insurance companies when handling  legitimate long-term disability claims.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said LTD insurers use doctors with conflicts of interest to review claims.  “Many of these doctors are employed either by the insurance company or by companies that do a lot of business with the insurance company,” Baucus said.  “These arrangements make it far too easy for the doctors to deny claims, terminate claims, or reject appeals.”

It’s time for long-term disability insurance companies to clean up their act and treat people fairly.  They have acted with impropriety for too long.  We need to evaluate the laws that we have on the books and make sure that they are true to their original purpose – to protect people from abuse, and to guarantee that they can get the insurance funds to which they are entitled.  Hard-working Americans with long-term disability insurance should not have to deal with corporate abuses if they suffer an injury that keeps them out of work.  They are entitled to insurance payments.  They should not face roadblock after roadblock to see that money, nor should they face unfair rescissions or payment terminations.

Baucus convened the hearing in response to recent media reports of unfair claim denials and terminations that threaten the livelihoods of those beneficiaries who are unable to work.  Both Baucus and the expert witnesses cited instances of long procedural delays and the use of in-house doctors to avoid making claim payments.

Ronald Leebove, a rehabilitation counselor who appeared for the American Board of Forensic Counselors, Springfield, Mo., said private group long-term disability policies fail to provide the protection insurers promise.  “There are many tricks and tactics used by the insurance companies to deny claims,” Leebove said.

Baucus stated his desire to work in conjunction with the Senate Commitee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to move toward a solution that gives beneficiaries the fair process and justice they deserve.

Video of the hearing and transcripts of testimony are available at:  http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=1c1bd578-5056-a032-5237-4dd9283e52ed

New York Times Exposes Biased and Incompetent “Independent Medical Examiners”

Embedded below is a video and New York Times article dated  March 31, 2009, exposing the biases and lack of competency of certain “independent medical examiners” used to deny disability claims.

By N. R. KLEINFIELD, New York Times

Dr. Hershel Samuels, an orthopedic surgeon, put his hand on the worker’s back. “Mild spasm bilaterally,” he said softly. He pressed his fingers gingerly against the side of the man’s neck. “The left cervical is tender,” he said, “even to light palpation.”

The worker, a driver for a plumbing company, told the doctor he had fallen, banging up his back, shoulder and ribs. He was seeking expanded workers’ compensation benefits because he no longer felt he could do his job.

Dr. Samuels, an independent medical examiner in the state workers’ compensation system, seemed to agree. As he moved about a scuffed Brooklyn office last April, he called out test results indicative of an injured man. His words were captured on videotape.

Yet the report Dr. Samuels later submitted to the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board cleared the driver for work and told a far different story: no back spasms, no tender neck. In fact, no recent injury at all.

“If you did a truly pure report,” he said later in an interview, “you’d be out on your ears and the insurers wouldn’t pay for it. You have to give them what they want, or you’re in Florida. That’s the game, baby.”

Independent medical exams are among the most disputed components of New York’s troubled workers’ compensation system. Under that system, workers with bona fide injuries are entitled to medical care and replacement wages, usually paid for by their employer’s insurer.

The independent exams are designed to flush out workers who exaggerate injuries or get unnecessary care, and there is no question that some of that goes on. As a check on what a worker’s doctor determines, insurers are allowed to order an ostensibly neutral exam by a doctor they select and pay for. They do so regularly, with more than 100,000 exams conducted each year.

But a New York Times review of case files and medical records and interviews with participants indicate that the exam reports are routinely tilted to benefit insurers by minimizing or dismissing injuries.

“You go in and sit there for a few minutes — and out comes a six-page detailed exam that he never did,” said Dr. Stephen M. Levin, co-director of the occupational and environmental medicine unit at Mount Sinai Medical Center, who has been picked as the interim medical director at the compensation board. “There are some noble things you can do in medicine without treating. This ain’t one of them.”

New York uses independent medical examiners far more extensively than many states do, and critics say the practice adds to the mistrust in the system. The examiners’ opinions can empower an insurer to slash benefits, withhold medical treatment or stall a case. Workers say that psychologically, there is something particularly damaging about being dishonestly evaluated by a medical professional.

“I was in so much pain and felt so hopeless for so long,” said Carol Houlder, a substance abuse counselor who waited a year for surgery on her injured ankle to be approved. “Doctors see you’re in pain and say you’re not. How do they call themselves doctors?”

Many independent examiners are older, semiretired physicians who no longer treat patients, and claimants and lawyers have asserted that the memories and judgments of some of the doctors have at times been impaired by their age and frailties. The examiners do not need special training, only to have a state license and to be authorized in a specialty.

“Basically if you haven’t murdered anyone and you have a medical license, you get certified,” said Dr. Alan Zimmerman, 75, a Queens orthopedic surgeon who does the exams. “It’s clearly a nice way to semiretire.”

Some examiners see dozens of injured workers a day. Often the appointments are booked by brokers who help insurance companies find doctors. Some brokers are not registered with the state, as required, but there has been little enforcement of the rules. Continue reading New York Times Exposes Biased and Incompetent “Independent Medical Examiners”