Rehabilitation

In an article in the Law Society’s Gazette of 26 May, Lucy Trevelyan wrote: ‘Rehabilitation companies which specialise in treating injured people and massaging them into shape and back into the workforce are springing up in droves, and insurers – previously suspicious of the concept – are more willing to give rehabilitation a try. Its rising use is no doubt partly because of the requirement in the pre-action personal injury protocol that both parties in an injury claim consider rehabilitation at the earliest opportunity.’ She quoted Mansell Aylward, Chief Medical Officer at the Department for Work and Pensions as pledging to take rehabilitation forward, and Allan Gore, president of APIL as saying: ‘Early rehabilitation is in the interests of the insurers because it reduces the compensation bill, it’s in the interests of employers because it returns employees to work and it’s in the interest of the Government because it reduces the costs of long-term care and reduces benefits outlay’ However, Richard Crabtree of Pannone & Partners said that one of the problems is a tendency for rehabilitation only to be considered where liability is clear-cut, or for rehabilitation to be adversarial with one party – normally the insurers – only agreeing to provide rehabilitation through named providers. He continued: ‘Adversarial rehabilitation is not in anyone’s interest as it does not assist the claimant and the improvement of their condition. Unfortunately some insurers will only agree to rehabilitation on their terms.’ The problem with rehabilitation that is controlled by insurers is that claimants who do not complete the programme can find themselves penalised by the insurers for failing to mitigate their loss.