That would have been an appropriate question. A better question would have been “have you ever been advised to undergo a diagnostic procedure for oncology purposes by a physician?”
Personally, I would like to read the contract, rather than the AP’s or a judge’s opinion. The article says that FF accused him of misrepresenting his health. By my interpretation, he did.
If anyone finds it, please post it. I did a little searching, but could not find much.
I don’t know if it applies to men, but women have to have biopsies or further testing if abnormal cells are detected during a routine PAP smear. OFten the results show nothing going on. Given his age, something may have been detected during the routine part of the exam that caused the dr. to order a biopsy just to be safe – and avoid a med mal claim!
Accurate observation by Cathy. A biopsy performed 3 days before De Niro signed the medical cert indicates he and his physician strongly suspected cancer. A biopsy to confirm or dismiss cancer is not part of a routine physical. The fact that his diagnosis took 5 days to confirm after the biopsy exploits an apparent loophole in FF’s medical certificate language.
It’s a good bet FF will broaden their language to something like, “Have you ever had, sought medical advice or consulation, suspected or been treated for, or been diagnosed as having any of the following conditions?”……
If we’re going to live by the contract, then we die by it as well. A tough lesson for FF.
As for De Niro’s attorney crowing his pleasure that “Firemans Fund can’t sue Mr. De Niro for getting cancer”, what an amazingly idiotic statement for the sheer joy of twisting the knife. What goes around comes around Mr. Crowther…just ask soon-to-be Ex-Governor Spitzer.
I’m just another one that thinks Cathy got it right. If the forms asks after a diagnosis you can’t sue if the insured gets a diagnosis after signing. They need write their contracts to cover what they want covered.
And a biopsy does not even hint at a “strong suspicion” of cancer. Any abnormality could trigger a biopsy, especially when dealing with someone rich and famous.
I agree that De Niro probably did not make a technical and therefore actionable misrepresentation. Therefore, there is no basis to sue him. I can even conceive of him delaying calling back his doctor or even asking him to hold the news and still not making an affirmative misrep.
I don’t think the judge ruled in his favor because it was Bobby D. But even if that were the case, it would set a precedent that the rest of us could benefit from if we (God forbid) were in a similar situation.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
That would have been an appropriate question. A better question would have been “have you ever been advised to undergo a diagnostic procedure for oncology purposes by a physician?”
Personally, I would like to read the contract, rather than the AP’s or a judge’s opinion. The article says that FF accused him of misrepresenting his health. By my interpretation, he did.
If anyone finds it, please post it. I did a little searching, but could not find much.
I don’t know if it applies to men, but women have to have biopsies or further testing if abnormal cells are detected during a routine PAP smear. OFten the results show nothing going on. Given his age, something may have been detected during the routine part of the exam that caused the dr. to order a biopsy just to be safe – and avoid a med mal claim!
Why doesnt the insurance company do their own medical tests before putting the policy into effect?
BTW, that movie sucked!
Accurate observation by Cathy. A biopsy performed 3 days before De Niro signed the medical cert indicates he and his physician strongly suspected cancer. A biopsy to confirm or dismiss cancer is not part of a routine physical. The fact that his diagnosis took 5 days to confirm after the biopsy exploits an apparent loophole in FF’s medical certificate language.
It’s a good bet FF will broaden their language to something like, “Have you ever had, sought medical advice or consulation, suspected or been treated for, or been diagnosed as having any of the following conditions?”……
If we’re going to live by the contract, then we die by it as well. A tough lesson for FF.
As for De Niro’s attorney crowing his pleasure that “Firemans Fund can’t sue Mr. De Niro for getting cancer”, what an amazingly idiotic statement for the sheer joy of twisting the knife. What goes around comes around Mr. Crowther…just ask soon-to-be Ex-Governor Spitzer.
I’m just another one that thinks Cathy got it right. If the forms asks after a diagnosis you can’t sue if the insured gets a diagnosis after signing. They need write their contracts to cover what they want covered.
And a biopsy does not even hint at a “strong suspicion” of cancer. Any abnormality could trigger a biopsy, especially when dealing with someone rich and famous.
HAted it
Thanks for that insight.
I agree that De Niro probably did not make a technical and therefore actionable misrepresentation. Therefore, there is no basis to sue him. I can even conceive of him delaying calling back his doctor or even asking him to hold the news and still not making an affirmative misrep.
I don’t think the judge ruled in his favor because it was Bobby D. But even if that were the case, it would set a precedent that the rest of us could benefit from if we (God forbid) were in a similar situation.
What has the health insurance industry come to!
Terrible thing to put Bobby through, they are a total disgrace.