I am just watching James Comey’ testimony on TV and he says he hoped Trump audio taped their meetings. I also note the commentators say his notes could be challenged.
With technology today it is very easy to record an independent medical exam or appointments with rehabilitation providers chosen by your Insurer. The benefit of recording is that you can make accurate notes and you feel less powerless.
To be clear I am not a lawyer and the lawyers of Resolute Legal do NOT endorse in any way secret recordings. It is viewed that this is very bad advice, but I still stand by it.
If you are not represented by a lawyer and are requested to see an Insurer chosen Doctor or other treatment provider-do not go alone and record!
You could tell them you are going to record so that you can make notes.
It was a good show. He talked a lot but didn’t say anything 
FBI training obviously. This is what I should do next time when I talk to my case manager 
1 Like
They might say no-so that would not work out well. I recorded out of fear that the Occupational Therapist, PT and Psychologist might lie and to prove cooperation and participation by my spouse.
…I never expected he would be harassed, told he had no human rights as Insurance is not human, that he did not have a right to review his medical records. Blew my mind. The claim file-team manger was away and no chance to sanitize before it was sent to us…was a shocking read.
Many CPP-D denials are based on reports from Insurer providers-how do you challenge unless you have it recorded?
RE: Expert opinions
[11] The Applicant suggests that a decision-maker should not rely on, or should assign little weight to, the medical opinions of experts who have been retained by parties adverse in interest to a claimant. I see no basis to routinely dismiss the opinions of such experts, given the materiality of this evidence, unless there is some evidence of actual bias, which is not alleged here. In any event, as the Federal Court of Appeal has held, the assignment of weight is a matter for the “province of the trier of fact”: Simpson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 82 (CanLII). Similarly, I would defer to the General Division’s assessment of the evidence. As the trier of fact, it is in the best position to assess the evidence before it and to determine the appropriate amount of weight to assign. The Appeal Division does not hear appeals on a de novo basis and is not in a position to assess the matter of weight. I am unable to conclude that the General Division should have placed more weight on, or given greater consideration to, the medical opinions of others.
I note that, in some jurisdictions, including Ontario, experts owe duties to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan, and these duties prevail over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. It is clear that some of the medical opinions were prepared in the course of litigation. I cannot envision that experts provided opinions without regard to these duties to be fair, objective and impartial, even if their opinions are prepared outside the litigation context.