The University calls disability Consortium (UDC) insurance companies employed to check whatever medical applications. You advertise that their service will most likely "denial-of - closure improved and prices at a lower cost."

Translated: "If you hire us, we claim for money to save denied."

And she will do it in a variety of ways. In the case of Velikanov vs. Union security insurance used UDC by Dr. Brian Mercer "enough close" - method. As in a condition which the plaintiff not but hey, mentioned, the of, wrote it about the condition and the condition of the plaintiff had (two different types of cysts) were "close enough", that they each without medicine to emission determined be could. Either he is not his job right (misinterpretation files) or IS doing his job right (search for ways to the legitimate claims to deny).

The judge threw reviews basically from Dr. Mercer because he found it too "inherently influenced." I have a feeling that this term to, if not all insurance docs could be applied, but now it seems their pseudo-medical opinions still generally accepted most of in the courtroom. Read Union at Velikanov vs. Security and see how UDC gescholten calls.

One comment to "judge attacks University disability Consortium advertising and policy"

Message:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.

Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]

View the original article here