The Incredible Abuse of Saskatchewan

No-Fault Insurance (Part 3)

Nipawin - June 2, 2000 - By: Mario deSantis and reviewed by James deSantis, illustration by TWS

Part 1

The governmental environment and their sponsored researches  
Dr. David Cassidy's study on No-Fault Insurance  

Part 2

Dr. Cassidy's study doesn't make common sense,
it is just an adulteration of numbers



Part 3

Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI
Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date



The limitations of statistics as expressed by George H. Gallup

Today's report is the third in a four part series posted each day for this week dealing with these issues that revolve around SGI'sno-fault insurance.





---Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI

the charge
that they are
for sale

There is acknowledged evidence that Dr. Cassidy's research was supported by a grant in the
order of at least a million dollar from SGI, a governmental insurance corporation in
Saskatchewan. A million dollars is a lot of money, and this amount is quite enough to raise
eyebrows about the arm's length relationship between Dr. Cassidy, the University of
Saskatchewan, this government and SGI. In this respect, researcher Dr. Marcia Angel has
recently stated that "Academic institutions and their clinical faculty members must take care
not to be open to (1)." Also, the allegations that Dr. Cassidy's
research was blatantly adulterated doesn't sustain the integrity of the authors of this study and
the integrity of the conclusions of this same study(2).
Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date

have not been standardized

In the last ten years the definitions and medical treatment of whiplash injuries has been changing.
Even today, whiplash injuries and definitions have not been standardized yet to support the
so-called objective statistical researches. An article of the insurance and medical paper
Recovery(3)' published in the Summer of 1999 states that the disparity of incidence of whiplash
injuries reported in different studies is "quite likely due to whiplash case definition, how claims
are counted (the number submitted versus the number awarded compensation), different
claiming incentives in different jurisdictions, and perhaps even different social expectations for
compensation . More studies will need to be conducted before we can fully understand these
regional variations."

don't think settlement
date is a
very good indicator

The SGI's rehabilitation and medical programs changed during the period of the study conducted
by Dr. Cassidy and therefore the changing of these programs affected the recovery time of the
injured people. As a consequence, Dr. Cassidy's assumption to equate claim closure with recovery
is completely out of place. Dr. Cassidy defends this assumption to equate claim closure to recovery
by saying that "we report extensive analysis showing that claim closure is highly associated with
improvements in neck pain, physical functioning and depressive symptoms.(4)" The inconsistency
with this assumption taken by Dr. Cassisy is further explained by Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice
President with SGI. In his letter dated August 1, 1995 directed to Dr. Cassidy, Jon Schubert
states "I personally don't think settlement date is a very good indicator of the degree of injury or

statistically incorrect

There is no doubt that Dr. Cassidy is a reductionist researcher exploiting any minor correlation
number he can get from his study and then jump to phony conclusions. In describing how
reductionist researchers can come up with phony conclusions, Professor Robert Sternberg says
that "anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from
correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things... To draw causal inferences from
correlational data is statistically incorrect... Another thing they do, in comparing correlations, is
that they don't take into account the reliability and precision of the measures being used. For
example, almost every measure we use is a proxy for something else."


-----------References & Endnotes:
  Quote by Donella Meadows "challenging a paradigm is not a part-time job. It is not sufficient to make your point once and then blame the world for not getting it. The world has a vested interest in, a commitment to, not getting it. The point has to be made patiently and repeatedly, day after day after day"
  General reference: Articles by Mario deSantis published by Ensign
  Dr. Cassidy's study on no-fault insurance: supporting another shock absorber, by Mario deSantis, April 20, 2000
  The fight against No-Fault Insurance is a fight for our Freedom: Attend the Public Forum at the Saskatoon Public Library on May 13, 2000, by Mario deSantis, May 9, 2000


Is Academic Medicine for Sale?, by Marcia Angell, M.D., The New England Journal of Medicine -- May 18, 2000 -- Vol. 342, No. 20,


Research favoring auto no-fault collides with trial lawyers, Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, May 22, 2000,


Leaps and Bounds, Recovery, Volume 10, Number 2, Summer 1999, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, BC, Canada


Critics should submit own research, Dr. David Cassidy's letter to the Editor, The StarPhoenix, May 17, 2000, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan


Letter dated August 1, 1995 from Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice President with SGI, directed to Dr. Cassidy