We previously began a series on how to improve decision making while managing claims. The series was based on a paper by Jeffrey Brewer. In the paper, Brewer identifies 10 strategies for improving decision making:
Prior entries addressed strategies 1-6. This entry will examine Brewer’s seventh strategy for improving decision making:
Perform hypothetico-deductive reasoning, that is, given a particular situation, apply relevant knowledge of principles and constraints and visualize, in the abstract, the plausible outcomes that might result from various changes one can imagine being imposed on the system.
In this directive, Brewer challenges us to remove emotion and bias when we examine claims. It is easy to make assumptions based on first impressions and intuitions when you first receive a claim. Hence, one may think a claim is bogus or fraudulent because of the claimant’s long history of unwitnessed soft tissue injury claims instead of analyzing the claim and what the likely outcomes will be based on the available evidence. The claimant’s history of making dubious claims is relevant, but focusing on that history without first examining the available objective facts and the inferences to be drawn from them would be a mistake. The claimant’s history impacts her credibility; the claimant’s credibility impacts the likelihood of the claimant succeeding at hearing or trial, which is nothing more than a probability function that helps determine the dollar value of the claim. Even if evidence of actual fraud arises, the information will reduce the claim to a zero or negative value. [By negative value I mean that the claimant could owe penalties or restitution that would inure to the benefit of the employer or insurance carrier.] Regardless, even in a case of outright and uncontested fraud, the ultimate effect is an economic one despite the moral outrage one may personally feel about the claimant’s fraudulent (and probably criminal) behavior.
If we cannot separate our personal feelings about a claim or a claimant from our analysis of the claim, we are likely to make poor decisions regarding both the value of the claim and how the claim should be managed. For example, in our fictitious claimant with a long history of dubious claims, we may be inclined to put more resources into surveillance than the facts and exposure on the claim would otherwise suggest is appropriate. Also, we may be prone to understate the claim’s value because we are likely to transfer our suspicion into our calculation of the exposure and our likelihood of successfully defending the claim at hearing or trial. In both the management and valuation of the claim, we may potentially set ourselves up for an unpleasant surprise if we judge a claim based on our visceral response to the claimant’s history rather than the actual demonstrative evidence.
A better way to address claims is to run it through “hypothetico-deductive reasoning” to visualize the possible outcomes based on the actual demonstrative evidence. This process of analysis has the virtue of forcing us to consider possible outcomes that may run counter to our emotions and intuitions (which are unlikely to be based on the actual demonstrative evidence before us). The process of dissociating ourselves emotionally from claims to engage in this reasoning process helps ensure that the decisions we are making are based on objective evidence and not on unsupported evidence or personal bias.
Let’s consider an example based on the above discussion. Let’s say Hank has worked for the Acme Corporation for 22 years assembling road runner retention and destruction devices for a certain loyal, if misguided, customer who happens to be a member of the species canis latrans, more commonly known as a coyote. In 13 of his 22 years at Acme, Hank has made a worker’s compensation claim. Remarkably, in 8 of the 13 claim years Hank suffered an unwitnessed soft tissue injury within weeks of the opening of gun deer hunting season. (The Acme Corporation happens to be located in Wisconsin where some consider the opening of gun season to be a bona fide sacred holiday). In 4 of the remaining 5 claim years, Hank suffered unwitnessed soft tissue injuries in suspiciously close proximity to various legally recognized holidays. In short, Hank and his claim history are sources of enormous frustration for his employer who rightfully regards the claims with more than a modicum of suspicion.
Now entering his 23rd year of service for the Acme Corporation, Hank claims to have injured his shoulder assembling a pair of roller skates that are fitted with expandable jet engines for the misguided coyote. In what is a running joke among the human resources and risk management departments, the injury occurred while Hank was working alone and a mere 3 days before the opening of gun hunting season, during which Hank has neglected to take any vacation days. Aside from rolling eyes and jokes at Hank’s expense, the employer is sincerely and understandably frustrated with the amount that the claim will cost the company. Accordingly, they have communicated their suspicion regarding the veracity of this claim to their insurer. Such is the employer’s level of frustration that the employer has demanded that their insurer take a scorched earth policy in investigating and, they have no doubt, in denying and subsequently litigating the claim. Included in this demand is the employer’s “suggestion” that surveillance be performed.
The claims handler assigned to the case reviews Hank’s claims history and discusses the current claim with the employer and, understandably, is left with the distinct impression that the claim is suspicious at best. Based on the information from the employer, the claims handler is inclined to believe that Hank is undoubtedly faking the injury to get off work for deer hunting season and that she should arrange, post haste, for surveillance to catch him enjoying his worker’s compensation-funded vacation.
However, the claims handler has additional information available at the time she ordered surveillance. First, the employer had a physical demands analysis conducted on the job Hank was performing when he claims to have injured his shoulder. The occupational medicine specialist performing the analysis concluded that the job Hank was performing put employees at a moderate-to-high risk of sustaining shoulder injuries because of the combination of the forces involved and the awkward, overhead positioning. Second, the injury report documents that Hank reported the injury two thirds of the way through his shift on a Wednesday, that he reported the injury immediately, and that he went to the emergency room immediately after reporting the injury.
At this point, if we apply hypothetico-deductive reasoning to the available facts we have essentially two likely scenarios. First, Hank’s claims history suggests that he may be using an unwitnessed “accident” to get time off from work with TTD benefits to go deer hunting. Second, the physical demands analysis, the fact that it occurred mid-shift/mid-week, Hank’s prompt reporting, and Hank’s prompt treatment suggest that perhaps the claimed injury may be legitimate. Under the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, we should at this point consider what information we would need to make one scenario more plausible than the other.
We know that Hank went to the emergency room. We should find out, if possible, what diagnostic tests were done, the results of the physical examination, whether a definitive diagnosis of an objective injury was established, whether the diagnosis was wholly based on subjective complaints, etc. We would also want to know if other employees suffered similar injuries doing the same or similar jobs. We should interview Hank before conducting surveillance. Perhaps his claims history suggests that he has not been credible in the past, but we want to base our judgment on present information. We would want to know how he described the incident he claims caused an injury. We would want to know whether the incident was acute, definable, and resulted in immediate pain versus a more nebulous scenario in which pain arose gradually and was not attributed to a specific motion or incident. We would want to know what the emergency room doctor or PA told him was the diagnosis. We would want to ask him about his deer hunting plans.
Let’s start with the emergency room visit. If the diagnosis is shoulder instability/subluxation (also known as a partial dislocation) based on x-ray evidence, this would probably trump any suspicions we might have based on his prior claims history. On the other hand, normal imaging studies and a shoulder strain diagnosis based wholly on subjective complaints would bolster our suspicion that Hank is acting consistently with his prior questionable claim history. The same analysis would apply to the other pieces of information obtained in the investigation. Our gut instinct might tell us the Hank or any other employee is manipulating the system and fabricating an injury, but we should test our assumptions and instincts using hypothetico-deductive reasoning so that we engage in the most thorough investigation possible, are unsurprised when the investigation follows a plausible path (even if it conflicts with our gut instinct), and make our claims decisions based on reason rather than emotion. In this way, we can make the best decisions when managing claims, even if that decision is at odds with our gut.
On a related note, one of Hank’s co-workers completed the roller skates with the expandable jet engines. The roller skates were successfully shipped to the coyote in an otherwise nondescript wood box stamped all over with “Acme Corporation” in bright red letters. Fortunately for the coyote, the skates worked precisely as expected. After hiding behind a large cactus conveniently located next to a long stretch of single lane highway in Monument Valley, the coyote heard the approaching “Beep, beep” of his longtime avian prey and foe. As the roadrunner sped by, the coyote activated the jets and took off with remarkable alacrity after the bird. Unsurprisingly, the jet-powered roller skates soon brought coyote even with and then past the roadrunner who, in typical form, gave out a nonplussed “Beep, beep” as the coyote wooshed by.
The coyote realized too late his error in not requesting from Acme Corporation that some sort of braking mechanism be added to the skates/jet engines. Specifically, the immense power and speed of the jet-powered skates propelled him the entire length of the straightaway and quickly brought him to a 90 degree turn in the road at the apex of which stood the rock face of a mesa. With roller skate wheels lacking the necessary friction coefficient to execute the turn and 375 miles an hour, the coyote surrendered himself to inevitability with a resigned and slightly plaintive look, and struck the rock face with a “poof,” causing a rather large cloud of dust to appear. Miraculously, coyote walked away from the crash. He had, however, reached a breaking point. Instead of contacting Acme Corporation for a new and ridiculous contraption for catching the roadrunner, he contacted a products liability attorney in Phoenix…
log in to commentBack to Blog