Thank you all for your feedback.
The emotional comment was not related to the case, just our personal feelings (sharing). I have deleted it so we can stick to the main issue.
By way of clarification and in response to some comments provided, I’d like to state:
a. The issue is not so much what an acoustic neuroma is – that has been agreed by all parties concerned. The only issue is whether its “in the brain” and therefore clarification of that the “definition” of the brain is, is critical.
b. This is part of life insurance and not medical insurance. We had no issues with our medical insurance or government cover. So it’s a private (global) company we are dealing with.
c. The definition in our policy is identical to one I found in a much earlier post (2009) and for which he that person had no issues claiming. Refer: http://www.anausa.org/smf/index.php?topic=9797.0
My issue is the consistency of application of definitions.
d. The brain stem is considered part of the brain and it would logically follow that its integral components are too i.e. the cranial nerves.
e. My research has now extended to the realm of “brain death” definitions which start to go into this level of complexity.
f. We have expert opinions from some of Australia’s top neurologists who have dismissed the insurance companies claims, and clarified that the cranial nerves are part of the brain.
g. @ArizonaJack - The insurance companies own supporting clarification documents (which we have found legally) confirm that the brain stem is part of “the brain”. Yet they still fight on, so we are not sure what their angle is and will only find out in court. Hence my need to find anything we can – and with all due respect, not web-links but actual substance.
h. We do need international perspective as part of our strategy which I cannot go into on a public forum.
i. Our lawyers are pro-bono and therefore the resources at our disposal and indeed our own very limited funds can only stretch so far. Supreme court cases do not come cheap and yes we have skipped the Financial Ombudsman in order to get a binding “legal” decision.
j. As such we have personally extensively trawled the internet, written to over 100 institutes and leading experts and received some positive feedback, but as you would expect some are hesitant to do so across international jurisdictions even though they fully support us.
Lastly, it’s funny how much you learn about the law and medicine when you get involved in cases such as these. I’ll leave you with an analogy from one of our neurologists “even though we are as right as we can be with the medical interpretations, the subjective legal ones and their contexts are not as clear cut”. Therein lies the problem…