Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)

Subject: Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)
From: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:04:40 -0800

At 05:28 PM 3/10/97 -0700, Jay Mead wrote:

>There is a superb example of such a lawsuit, concerning the lack of
>clarity of a benefits package description--and as I remember the company
>lost the case (proving just how valuable we writers are)!

The one I've heard about (and it may be the same one, it may not) was
over a physician referral. The primary care physician referred the patient
to a non-plan-member doctor, and when the insurance company refused to
pay, the patient sued and won. The insurance policy merely said "referral
by primary care physician" and did not mention plan membership.


Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com
-- The _Guide_ is definitive.
Reality is frequently inaccurate.

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Re: Newsletter article re The List
Next by Author: Re: product lite
Previous by Thread: Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)
Next by Thread: Job Description


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads