What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
NDIS?

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
> NDIS?

Happens all the time with compo claims.

On 31-Aug-22 2:43 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
> NDIS?

Workers' compensation claims are against the employer, who can dispute
them in court if desired. The doctors can then be cross-examined just
like any other witness.

Of course, going to court can cost a lot of money, and even more if the
case is lost. If there is to be litigation then it would usually be the
insurer who instigates it, and they pay for it. I imagine they'd need a
pretty solid reason for doing that, rather than just the employer's
misgivings.

If you have an employee who's making a worker's compensation claim, and
you believe, based on solid evidence, that the extent (or even
existence) of the basis for the claim has been exaggerated, then your
obvious course would be to inform your insurer.

I'm not clear how you'd be a party to an NDIS claim, unless you're the
claimant.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Peter Jason wrote

>> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
>> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
>> NDIS?

> Workers' compensation claims are against the employer, who can dispute
> them in court if desired. The doctors can then be cross-examined just
> like any other witness.

> Of course, going to court can cost a lot of money, and even more if the
> case is lost. If there is to be litigation then it would usually be the
> insurer who instigates it, and they pay for it.

> I imagine they'd need a pretty solid reason for doing that, rather than
> just the employer's misgivings.

You'd be wrong about that. The employer is the one FAR
more likely to know that a particular individual is a bludger
and is likely to be falsely claiming that they have been injured.

> If you have an employee who's making a worker's compensation claim, and
> you believe, based on solid evidence, that the extent (or even
> existence) of the basis for the claim has been exaggerated, then your
> obvious course would be to inform your insurer.

> I'm not clear how you'd be a party to an NDIS claim, unless you're the
> claimant.

You don't need to be a party to tell the NDIS that a
particular individual is trying it on.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:56:37 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

>On 31-Aug-22 2:43 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
>> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
>> NDIS?
>
>Workers' compensation claims are against the employer, who can dispute
>them in court if desired. The doctors can then be cross-examined just
>like any other witness.
>
>Of course, going to court can cost a lot of money, and even more if the
>case is lost. If there is to be litigation then it would usually be the
>insurer who instigates it, and they pay for it. I imagine they'd need a
>pretty solid reason for doing that, rather than just the employer's
>misgivings.

Can a diagnosis of several doctors/specialists override the first?
>
>If you have an employee who's making a worker's compensation claim, and
>you believe, based on solid evidence, that the extent (or even
>existence) of the basis for the claim has been exaggerated, then your
>obvious course would be to inform your insurer.
>
>I'm not clear how you'd be a party to an NDIS claim, unless you're the
>claimant.
>
>Sylvia.
>

On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 07:09:11 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:56:37 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31-Aug-22 2:43 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
>>> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
>>> NDIS?
>>
>> Workers' compensation claims are against the employer, who can dispute
>> them in court if desired. The doctors can then be cross-examined just
>> like any other witness.
>>
>> Of course, going to court can cost a lot of money, and even more if the
>> case is lost. If there is to be litigation then it would usually be the
>> insurer who instigates it, and they pay for it. I imagine they'd need a
>> pretty solid reason for doing that, rather than just the employer's
>> misgivings.
>
> Can a diagnosis of several doctors/specialists override the first?

No, the court decides which to believe and which is more credible
given the evidence presented.

>> If you have an employee who's making a worker's compensation claim, and
>> you believe, based on solid evidence, that the extent (or even
>> existence) of the basis for the claim has been exaggerated, then your
>> obvious course would be to inform your insurer.
>>
>> I'm not clear how you'd be a party to an NDIS claim, unless you're the
>> claimant.

More Rodbot bot droppings:
=======================
>
> You'd be wrong about that. The employer is the one FAR
> more likely to know that a particular individual is a bludger
> and is likely to be falsely claiming that they have been injured.

** As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know" it's what you can prove to a court or tribunal.

> You don't need to be a party to tell the NDIS that a
> particular individual is trying it on.

** Be treated as vexatious and ignored.

On 01-Sept-22 7:09 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:56:37 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31-Aug-22 2:43 pm, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> What is the possibility of appealing the diagnosis of a doctor who
>>> issues false medical reports for his patient, to access workers comp &
>>> NDIS?
>>
>> Workers' compensation claims are against the employer, who can dispute
>> them in court if desired. The doctors can then be cross-examined just
>> like any other witness.
>>
>> Of course, going to court can cost a lot of money, and even more if the
>> case is lost. If there is to be litigation then it would usually be the
>> insurer who instigates it, and they pay for it. I imagine they'd need a
>> pretty solid reason for doing that, rather than just the employer's
>> misgivings.
>
> Can a diagnosis of several doctors/specialists override the first?
>>
>
Not in the way you mean - it's not a democracy.

But if it came to court, the judge would weigh up the evidence of the
various doctors.

Sylvia.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> You'd be wrong about that. The employer is the one FAR
>> more likely to know that a particular individual is a bludger
>> and is likely to be falsely claiming that they have been injured.

> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know" it's what you
> can prove to a court or tribunal.

Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys, you pig ignorant
clown.

>> You don't need to be a party to tell the NDISthat a particular
>> individual is trying it on.

> Be treated as vexatious and ignored.

The NDIS doesnt work like that given that they don't have
anything like the funding they need and are looking for any
exuse to not fund what they can get away with not funding.

Rodbot Fuckwi tLIAR Speed wrote:
======================
> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know" it's what you
> > can prove to a court or tribunal.

> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,

** Irrelevant bullshit.

1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.

2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.

> >> You don't need to be a party to tell the NDISthat a particular
> >> individual is trying it on.

> > Be treated as vexatious and ignored.

> The NDIS doesnt work like ....

** Fuck off you LYING IDIOT !!

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know"it's what you can
>>> prove to a court or tribunal.

>> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,

> Irrelevant bullshit.

Fact actually and it may not even get anywhere near a court or tribunal
anyway.

> 1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.

In reality that hardly ever results in a criminal trial.

> 2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.

Wrong, as always, particularly when it never
gets anywhere near a court or tribunal.

All you have to do is make a claim and no proof
is required with a compo claim, in fact it is up to
the employer to show that the claim is a lie.

>>>> You don't need to be a party to tell the NDIS
>>>> that a particular individual is trying it on.

>>> Be treated as vexatious and ignored.

>> The NDIS doesnt work like that given that they don't have
>> anything like the funding they need and are looking for any
>> excuse to not fund what they can get away with not funding.

Criminal LIAR Rod Speed wrote:
=================
>
> >>> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know"it's what you can
> >>> prove to a court or tribunal.
>
> >> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,
>
> > Irrelevant bullshit.
>
> Fact actually

** Still completely irrelevant.

> and it may not even get anywhere near a court or tribunal
> anyway.

** Irrelevant to the question.

> > 1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.

> In reality that hardly ever results in a criminal trial.

** Not relevant to the question here.

> > 2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.

> Wrong,

** Complete fact - you LYING PIG

> All you have to do is make a claim and no proof
> is required with a compo claim,

** Massive LIE

FOAD you LYING PIG

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know"
>>>>> it's what you can prove to a court or tribunal.

>>>> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,

>>> Irrelevant bullshit.

>> Fact actually

> Still completely irrelevant.

Fact actually

>> and it may not even get anywherenear a court or tribunal anyway.

> Irrelevant to the question.

Bullshit it is, that claim may not even get
anywhere near a court or tribunal anyway.

All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

>>> 1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.

>> In reality that hardly ever results in a criminal trial.

> Not relevant to the question here.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

There won't be any criminal trial when they
tell the bludger to go and fuck himself.

>>> 2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.

>> Wrong,

> Complete fact

Not when it never goes anywhere near any court or tribunal.

All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

>> All you have to do is make a claim and no proof
>> is required with a compo claim,

On 1/09/2022 3:24 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know"
>>>>>> it's what you  can  prove to a court or tribunal.
>
>>>>> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,
>
>>>> Irrelevant bullshit.
>
>>> Fact actually
>
>> Still completely irrelevant.
>
> Fact actually
>
>>> and it may not even get anywherenear a court or tribunal  anyway.
>
>> Irrelevant to the question.
>
> Bullshit it is, that claim may not even get
> anywhere near a court or tribunal  anyway.
>
> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.
>
>>>> 1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.
>
>>> In reality that hardly ever results in a criminal trial.
>
>> Not relevant to the question here.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.
>
> There won't be any criminal trial when they
> tell the bludger to go and fuck himself.
>
>>>> 2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.
>
>>> Wrong,
>
>> Complete fact
>
> Not when it never goes anywhere near any court or tribunal.
>
> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.
>

He will need evidence to support his claims, otherwise the employee's
claim will succeed if he has doctor's reports on his side.

>>> All you have to do is make a claim and no proof
>>> is required with a compo claim,

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>> As with any legal matter - it is NOT what you "know"
>>>>>>> it's what you can prove to a court or tribunal.

>>>>>> Not with civil matters, its balance of probabilitys,

>>>>> Irrelevant bullshit.

>>>> Fact actually

>>> Still completely irrelevant.

>> Fact actually

>>>> and it may not even get anywherenear a court or tribunal anyway.

>>> Irrelevant to the question.

>> Bullshit it is, that claim may not even get
>> anywhere near a court or tribunal anyway.

>> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
>> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
>> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
>> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

>>>>> 1. Scamming insurers and/or govt benefits IS criminal.

>>>> In reality that hardly ever results in a criminal trial.

>>> Not relevant to the question here.

>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
>> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
>> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
>> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

>> There won't be any criminal trial when they
>> tell the bludger to go and fuck himself.

>>>>> 2. The civil standard still needs credible PROOF.

>>>> Wrong,

>>> Complete fact

>> Not when it never goes anywhere near any court or tribunal.

>> All Pete has to do is tell the insurance and the NDIS
>> that that employee is trying it on for them to tell the
>> bludger to go and fuck himself. He doesn't even need
>> to prove anything, just tell the insurer and NDIS that.

> He will need evidence to support his claims,

Nope, just make the claim with compo.

> otherwise the employee's claim will succeedif he has doctor's reports
> on his side.

It isnt up to the doctor to even know where the injury happened.

And that is critical to whether it is a valid compo claim.

>>>> All you have to do is make a claim and no proof
>>>> is required with a compo claim,