[ad_1]
New issue with controversial appraiser IV: company uses this trick to get orders
Swiss IV’s top expert, ABI, has come under fire again. Now it comes to his dealings with persistent attorneys.
ABI: For some, these are just three letters. For Swiss lawyers, the ABI, short for Medical Assessment Institute Basel, is definitely a buzzword. Because nobody writes as many IV reports as the Basel clarification office. Whether someone receives an IV pension or not often depends on the evaluation of the company, which is a market power.
Who receives an IV pension? Appraisal companies like ABI have great influence. Photo: trapezoidal
There were years when he wrote more than one in four complex reports in Switzerland. The problem: The company has been criticized for years. Because the possibility of the ABI granting a pension is lower than with other experts. The numbers prove it. Therefore, attorneys often tried to reject the ABI as an expert opinion.
But that wasn’t the only reason the institute made headlines: In 2018, the market for expert reporting fundamentally changed, with new vendors entering the market. The ABI lost 50 percent of its revenue in one fell swoop and resorted to a controversial stunt to secure work and assignments for reviewers, as research from CH Media showed.
A confidant of ABI’s founder, Simon Lauper, bought two appraisal companies in central Switzerland, for which full Basel appraisal teams now also work. Since these teams worked for three companies, their chances of getting a job continued to be higher. Because these are awarded by the federal government through lottery. Ultimately, the Federal Social Security Office (FSIO) prohibited this practice because it would undermine the random principle legally stipulated.
Under no circumstances will the federal government tolerate “risk surcharges”
This had no further regulatory consequences for the ABI. Only the rumor remained that ABI founder Lauper had been involved in his colleague’s ventures to secure an income. However, the institute subsequently faced requests for recusal from lawyers because the rules had been violated.
Now the tense situation between ABI and the lawyers is likely to get worse again. The CH-Media-Zeitung has a document in which the Basler Gutachteninstitut demanded a risk surcharge from the Aargauer IV agency, because the report was not only extensive, but the insured’s lawyer was “strongly negative”.
A risk surcharge for a critical lawyer: this would be something new in the landscape of Swiss experts. In fact, this would mean that the ABI almost automatically earns more when clients have a persistent attorney. In the letter, the ABI does not mention any amount, but it does explain what a “strongly negative-minded lawyer” means. There are “delays, discredits, little cooperation” and “defamation before and after the evaluation,” he says.
Statements for post-procedure are problematic
This passage was discovered by employees of the Olten Zenari Thomann law firm. Such a statement is shocking to attorney Roger Zenari. On the one hand, it is the task of lawyers to express criticisms of the institute of experts or experts in the interest of their clients, if they do not seem objective enough.
“This is part of the insured’s procedural rights. An expert position should not be additionally compensated for this. You don’t have to spend a lot of time. “
On the other hand, according to Zenari, such statements are problematic for subsequent proceedings: “If animosities are expressed towards a law firm, one can legitimately wonder if the body of experts is biased,” says the lawyer.
The opinion of the Federal Social Security Office (FSIO) is also clear. Such risk surcharges would be inadmissible because they would contradict a neutral and independent assessment, the office states upon request. So far, they are not aware of such a practice, but would otherwise consider regulatory measures.
Rightly so, because: “If such a risk surcharge has been agreed and registered, it can obviously be assumed that it will lead to a withdrawal request.” The proceedings would drag on. “Therefore, it is hardly conceivable for us that a IV agency would agree to such a risk surcharge,” states the FSIO. Even if it has now happened in Aargau.
Head of ABI: “This was an absolute exception”
In reality, the rates for IV reports are regulated, mostly flat rates are set. However, for certain types of expert opinion, compensation can be negotiated based on guiding values, especially if the cases are more complex, for example, if a case has already lasted several years and there are hundreds of pages of files available . Higher compensation is justified “based on effort, but certainly not in personal relationship with a lawyer,” says Ralf Kocher of the Federal Office of Social Security.
Does the ABI want to label unpopular attorneys with a “risk surcharge” or just be compensated for nasty criticism? No, says managing director and founder Simon Lauper. The word “risk surcharge” is an absolute exception. The word only appeared once out of thousands of emails. Lauper talks about a “wrong choice” of words by a clerk. Also, compensation claims can be counted on the one hand, justified by the best efforts of lawyers.
Attorneys are less of a burden than procedures
The head of ABI also refers to statements that are likely to be more in accordance with the supervisory law: it is true that greater difficulties and expenses are expected if lawyers have negative attitudes towards an expert position. In principle, however, it would be fewer lawyers than court proceedings themselves that would cause additional work.
Objections sometimes lead to delays of months, there are inquiries, criticisms and clients cancel appraisal appointments more than average, with no compensation for appraisers. And last but not least, the ABI is also exposed to “defamation” and damage to its reputation.
