Yea I guess. But even for me with a PSA near 20 and a biopsy done and awaiting results, should I have stopped my business because I pretty much suspected it would be positive? I didn't even know at the biopsy disclosure what was next. Would I miss timem off was not a for sure at any point before the positive. We always tell our newbies or potential PCa newbies that you don't know for sure stay positive. I would not change that across any demographic. Mr. De Niro went through what we went through. Scared, not knowing, unsure, learning, etc. In his business the show must go on. He had to keep his production going, reserving the actors and actresses, set folks and everybody else including the insurance he is required to have. Did he manipulate his biopsy dates? That's a felony. But insurer acknowledged in writing that they did not suspect that he knew about
it, just that he, like you say, might have been better to disclose the possibility he had it. Who's more dishonest? This is to me a perfect example of an insurance company attempting to litigate to cut it's losses.
When I posted this I did not have an opinion on it. Just an acknowledgement on where the court says it is. But after thinking about
it, shame on the insurer for attempting to litigate a cancer occurance. I don't believe had De Niro disclosed a pending biopsy that the insurer would have turned away the business. At worst they may have added a rider to what they would have covered. They were just looking for an opportunity to save on the 1.8mil. Had their lawyers won they would have done just that.
Wow, what a gray area...
Also a nice write up from 2003 on the De Niro case and prostate cancer contraversy:
Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 3/16/2008 12:21:00 PM (GMT-6)