Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
Elbers ,
Ian
1
Cameron ,
Alex
2
Collie
Injured people
Injured claimants
Why?
Explanatory theories:
Secondary gain
Financial incentive not to get better
Secondary victimisation
Stressful compensation process
Biopsychosocial theory
Multiple factors cause stress
Reverse causality theory
Claimants have pre-injury illness history
Research questions:
Is a fault-based compensation scheme more
adversarial than a no-fault scheme?
Is a fault-based compensation scheme
perceived less fair than a no-fault scheme?
Does a fault-based scheme involve poorer
health & recovery than a no-fault scheme?
Time
Figure 1.
Injured claimants do not recover as well as injured people
who do not claim compensation
Method
Cross-jurisdictional study:
Hypothesis:
Phase
Compensation
policies
II
III
Data
Hypothesis
more
NSW adversarial VIC
than
Perceived fairness
of claim process
Claimants
health and recovery
less fair
NSW
than
VIC
poorer health
NSW & recovery VIC
than
Figure 2. Flow chart of cross-jurisdictional study investigating: (I) compensation policies, (II) perceived
fairness of claim process, (III) claimants health and recovery
Possible implications
The study could have implications for the following professionals:
Policy makers:
Lawyers:
Researchers:
Previous compensation & health researchers did
not accurately describe the claim process
The reason is probably a lack of knowledge of the
adversarial aspects of the claim process
The black box is problematic because then the
results of different studies cannot be compared
This study can provide a taxonomy of the
adversarial aspects of the claim
process which can be used to
describe compensation schemes