Before the development of a sound basis for rehabilitation, those acting for victims of accidents could only offer a litigation service that provided lump-sum compensation at the conclusion of the case, which could be some years from the happening of the original accident. Interim payments were available, usually resisted by insurers, to pay for medical treatment. Lawyers and insurers did not believe that it was part of their remit to intervene in medical issues and left this to the claimant’s own medical advisors.

The result was that many accident victims suffered a significant diminution in their quality of life for a considerable time. This was particularly so in the case of those with acquired brain injury, spinal cord injury or multiple injuries.

Today, things are very different. One of the first issues for the claimant lawyer, and the defendant insurer, is the claimant’s quality of life. Does this person need some early intervention to assist with living? Do they need some home adaptations to make life easier? Can they get all the rehabilitation treatment they need? Do they need counselling to dissipate some of the post-accident trauma? Do they need some retraining to get back to work?

By using the Rehabilitation Code, or indeed other negotiated arrangements, these needs can be assessed and delivered outside the claims handling or litigation process.

The claimant’s needs are assessed by an independent (or sometimes in-house) expert and costed. If the needs are appropriate and reasonably costed the insurer can pay for the implementation of the expert’s recommendations immediately.

The claimant recovers more quickly, has a better quality of life and may return to work sooner.

This may mean that the overall level of damages that the claimant can expect to receive is reduced. However, what the claimant really wants is to get better, have less pain, and have a better quality of life, rather than receive extra compensation. The result is "win –win" for both sides.