I am responding to Rob Turner's "A time and a place" article (Features, 9 March)
The very first sentence (I am a cynic) and the very last sentence (claimants are at it) of the article tend to suggest a "closed mind".
His arguments are "supported" by inaccurate and generalised statements such as "the cost of the rehab report alone I have never seen at less than £1000".
Rehabilitation has moved on a lot in the last few years.
The customers (the funding party, mostly insurers) are measuring the impact of rehabilitation not just on specific savings made from return to work and improvement in general damages, but also those benefits that arise from intervention at a time when, traditionally, nothing would be done.
For most insurers, the issue now is not about the principle of rehabilitation but about how to identify those cases which are best suited to it and at a time when it will have the greatest impact.
It is worth remembering that "this new fangled rehabilitation thing" (when was this article penned?) arose out of a combination of: evidence becoming available to demonstrate an inexorable rise in injury claims costs far in excess of the cost of living (the UK Bodily Injury Award Studies 1997 and 2003); the traditional adversarial way of dealing with claims just not being good enough any more; and an acceptance that by itself the NHS was not going to provide optimum recovery from even most straightforward of injuries.
I doubt that Turner will easily change his mind about the fact that claims are now dealt with in a different way and that rehabilitation is an integral part of that process.
I would, however, be happy for him to come to pay us a visit to see how it works in practice.