BICMA Bodily Injury Claims Management Association Presents:- Rehabilitation In Personal Injury Claims Chairman Robin de Wilde QC

Rehabilitation Market Developments Norman Cottington Managing Director, TICCS President, BICMA (Bodily Injury Claims Management Association) Founding Director, CMS UK Member ABI/IUA Rehabilitation Working Party

Rehabilitation in Personal Injury Claims The History

1994 Park Lane Conference Launch of the Disability Assessment Unit

1997 DAU Working Party becomes BICMA (Bodily Injury Claims Management Association) The Early Assessment Agreement launched at The Liberal Club

1998 BICMA joins ABI Rehab Working Party Early Assessment Agreement adopted

1999 Second UK Bodily Injury Award Study Publication of The Rehabilitation Code – “Code of Best Practice on Rehabilitation, Early Intervention and Medical Treatment in Personal Injury Claims” BICMA publishes – “The Practitioners Guide to Rehabilitation”

2000 A register of Solicitors and Insurers endorsing the principles of The Rehabilitation Code appears on the BICMA website

2003 The third UK Bodily Injury Award Study Amended Rehabilitation Code

2005 The Personal Injury Protocol incorporates rehabilitation The Rehabilitation Code attaches to the PI Protocol The BICMA Agreement published – Provides for implementation beyond assessment

2006 There are calls for rehabilitation providers to be regulated. BICMA presents “Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers”

2007 Revised and amended Rehabilitation Code with “Rehab Lite” Mediation service for Rehab disputes.

Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers For one body to regulate all of the disciplines involved in the rehabilitation process will prove virtually impossible Regulation – if it ever happens – will be years away A provider adhering to the BICMA standards will demonstrate both independence and a commitment to deliver quality services

Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Providers of rehabilitation services are invited to commit to the following:

Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 1 Any person involved in providing the service shall be appropriately qualified, shall be a member of their appropriate professional body and shall act in accordance with the standards of practice of that professional body.

There shall be, in respect of any such service as is provided, appropriate and proper professional indemnity and liability insurance. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 2

The duty of the provider of any service is to the injured party, who is at all times the client, and that duty shall be independent of any claim or litigation. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 3

The services and/or recommendations provided shall be appropriate, timely, reasonable and not influenced by the source of instruction. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 4

In the provision of any services, account should be taken of the provision of such services within the National Health Service and/or the relevant Social Services Provisions. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 5

Their terms of business and transactions, including any credit arrangements, be open and available to inspection by any legitimate interest. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers Clause 6

It is not intended that these standards should go in place of any eventual regulation that may be considered necessary, but that they provide some assurances of the quality of provision of services in the shorter term. It is hoped that when instructing a rehabilitation provider you will always enquire as to whether they are signatories to the BICMA standards. Quality Standards for Rehabilitation Providers

The 2007 Rehabilitation Code The changes:- Time scales introduced. Where rehab identified Claimant Solicitor to respond “immediately” Compensator to respond “within 21 days” As to choice of assessor “within 21 days” Assessment “within 14 days”

Mediation for rehab disputes CMC/BICMA/NMH SCHEME Provides proportionate resolution of disputes by telephone mediation so as to avoid delay in the delivery of early intervention and support. Choice of provider / Funding / Direction. Anything that may be the cause of delay

There are numerous barriers most of which emanate from individual claims handlers, whether they be solicitors or defendant insurers. Barriers to Rehabilitation

a) A lack of awareness of the process b) Scepticism c) A Lack of trust d) A lack of confidence e) Greed And on occasions: Simple bloody mindedness! The Barriers in Brief

Unfortunately there are still some insurers and some claimant solicitors who have yet to be fully convinced as to the benefits of rehabilitation and as a result have no specific rehabilitation strategy. Even though most practitioners support the need to provide and use rehabilitation, there remains inconsistency in approach. Ignorance

A full in-depth needs assessment of a vulnerable victim needs to be conducted by an agency or case manager who can be recommended to the client with a confidence based upon previous experience or valued recommendation. Choice of Provider Whose Choice?

Insurers may have providers who they would prefer to instruct on the basis of performance, cost or both. Where the solicitor’s choice is also a preferred provider of the insurer no problems arise. Insurers Preferred Providers

If the insurer is insistent on a preferred provider it can fuel suspicions that: – The provider is working to accommodate the views or influences of the insurer which, rightly or wrongly, can undermine confidence in the independence of the provider. Dispute over Choice of Provider

Disputes create delay detrimental to the individual client’s recovery Mediation could be the answer Dispute over Choice of Provider

Whilst contrary to the spirit of The Rehabilitation Code, TICCS will now accept sole instructions from claimant solicitors and provide the service on credit where: – “The defendant insurer has, for any reason, declined to participate in the process or declined the solicitor’s choice of TICCS as rehabilitation provider.” Sole Instructions

Rehabilitation Farmer Credit Rehabilitation

Despite increasing market concern a rehabilitation farmer has yet to be identified. Rehabilitation Farmer?

Concern has been expressed by insurers. Rehabilitation costs inflated by credit terms. Credit Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation. Everybody wins ! The best possible care and support Provided as economically as possible To provide the best outcome. Solicitors and Insurers working together with the victim