conflicting medical reports – OLHI – Free, impartial help with your life & health insurance complaints

Dale had a universal life insurance policy.

When his insurance company told him they were going to charge him another premium for the policy, Dale decided to terminate it.

To avoid a Cost of Insurance (COI) charge, the insurer told Dale to send a signed insurance cancellation letter to the same day he terminated his policy.

However, Dale’s insurer didn’t inform him that he needed to include his social insurance number (SIN) in the termination letter. Without the SIN, his policy termination got delayed and Dale was charged the COI. As a result, he received a lower refund than expected.

After he received a final position letter from the insurer, Dale reached out to OLHI to review his complaint.

OLHI’s review confirmed that his insurance company did not tell Dale he had to include his SIN in the letter.

OLHI’s review also found that even after Dale sent in the letter with his SIN, the company asked for it again. OLHI recommended that the insurer reconsider the COI charge for two reasons:

The company did not initially communicate that Dale needed to include his SIN in his termination letter.

When the insurer said Dale needed to include the SIN, he did so, and sent the termination letter within the same day, so the company should have processed it effective as of the receipt date.

Consequently, the insurer agreed and backdated the termination and refunded the COI charge.

Disclaimer: Names, places and facts have been modified in order to protect the privacy of the parties involved. This case study is for illustration purposes only. Each complaint OLHI reviews contains different facts and contract wording may vary. As a result, the application of the principles expressed here may lead to different results in different cases.

Ms. C. worked as an office administrator, a predominantly sedentary role. She began to experience medical conditions that affected her back. Her employer’s group disability insurance plan covered her short-term disability claim. After several months, the insurance company denied Ms. C.’s coverage for long-term disability (LTD), stating that her illness did not prevent her from performing her job. The final position letter explained that Ms. C’s illness lacked clinical medical information to satisfy the terms of the disability contract.

After receiving this letter, which pointed to OLHI as an independent dispute resolution service, Ms. C. approached OLHI. In her review, OLHI’s Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) noted that medical reports determined Ms. C. was not fit for work and that her condition was deteriorating. Meanwhile, the insurance company interpreted the reports differently, finding there was an improvement in her condition. The DRO also questioned whether the insurance company was relying too much on looking for neurological evidence that did not directly correlate with Ms. C.’s diagnosis from her doctor and specialist.

With these questions in mind, the DRO recommended an OmbudService Officer (OSO) further investigate Ms. C.’s complaint.

OLHI’s OSO learned that the tests conducted on Ms. C. returned with negative or mild/moderate results. Medical reports recommended that she could still perform sedentary or light duties, fitting with her job description, and her doctor supported a gradual return to work program. However, Ms. C.’s employer declined the program and instead ordered an independent medical examination, which concluded that she was not fit to work. Meanwhile, other conflicting medical reports suggested that Ms. C.’s condition was deteriorating because of an unhealthy lifestyle and not because of her diagnosis affecting her back.

Given the conflicting information and the employer’s refusal to have Ms. C. return to work because of its own medical findings, the OSO recommended that the insurance company and the employer reach an agreement. With OLHI’s recommendation, Ms. C. was able to reach a settlement.

Tag: conflicting medical reports

Cancelling an insurance policy – OLHI clears up a mistaken COI charge