Whiplash!

By Julie Foster

A report published by the New England Journal of Medicine shows recovery time from car crash
injuries actually decreases in areas using “no-fault” insurance laws.

Generally, no-fault systems let policyholders recover benefits regardless
of who is at fault for an accident and restrict the right to sue for pain
and suffering.

Researchers at the University of Alberta in
Canada studied 7,462 whiplash claims for six months before and one year
after Saskatchewan dropped its pain-and-suffering awards. Under the
province’s system, people could instead collect more money for medical costs
and lost work, and lawsuits were still allowed if medical costs or lost
wages exceeded the standard benefit.

The number of claims filed fell by 28 percent within six months, and the
average time to settle claims plunged 54 percent.

In their report, researchers said the study supplies a strong medical
argument for no-fault insurance.

Car crash victims were asked to fill out follow-up health questionnaires.
Results showed that as people settled claims, they reported less neck pain,
better functioning and fewer other symptoms. Patients requiring more than
two days of hospitalization were excluded by the study, leaving only
relatively minor injuries to be considered.

J. David Cassidy, an epidemiologist and lead author of the study, said
no-fault takes away the financial incentive to delay recovery.

Thirteen U.S. states have adopted no-fault auto insurance laws — the
first of which was Massachusetts in 1971.

Officials in the U.S. insurance industry said the study, released
Thursday, builds on other research with similar findings.

Peter Kinzler, president of the Coalition of Auto-Insurance Reform, in
Alexandria, Va., said fault systems greatly inflate both outright fraud and
conscious exaggeration of medical claims to levels as high as 40 percent.

“For small claims, everybody has the incentive to over-utilize the
system: doctors, lawyers, claimants,” said Kinzler, according to an
Associated Press report.

Dr. Richard Deyo, who does cost-benefit analyses at the University of
Washington,
said there may be several reasons
that people report fewer symptoms under no-fault.

He said some people fraudulently exaggerate whiplash when they can win
pain and suffering awards. Others may not vocalize their injuries since
there is no financial incentive to complain.

“Physicians often blame lawyers for unnecessary disability claims, citing
contingency fees, ‘ambulance chasing,’ and exaggerated claims of pain and
suffering,” Deyo wrote in an editorial about the report. “Certainly,
adversarial proceedings impair a patient’s ability to recover; any
improvement threatens the patient’s credibility and financial well-being,
because of legal fees and lost wages. It seems almost axiomatic that if you
have to prove you are ill, you can’t get well.”

Edmonton personal injury lawyers reject the study, saying no-fault
insurance systems only benefit irresponsible drivers.

“Fault is not relevant, so the driver who gets drunk, causes an accident
and gets injured is going to receive compensation on the same basis as the
innocent person who is injured.” lawyer Mark McCourt told the
Canadian
Press.

High insurance premiums drove Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan
to switch to no-fault systems.

Cassidy urged government officials in Alberta to employ no-fault
insurance systems based on the study’s findings. But insurance premiums are
generally less expensive in Alberta, where competition encourages better
rates.

The study, which took place between July 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1995, was
paid for by Saskatchewan Government Insurance, the province’s only
car-insurance provider.

Julie Foster

Julie Foster is a contributing reporter for WorldNetDaily. Read more of Julie Foster's articles here.