How to Prevent
Unfair Settlements
Win The "Greater Weight"
Of The Evidence Challenges

A CLE Accredited Program
Speaker/Author: Dr. Frank Liberti

About Dr. Frank Liberti

There is nothing ordinary about Dr. Frank Liberti nor the platform from which he delivers his presentations, nor what you will hear and learn at this symposium. Some of the material contained within this symposium is disturbing.

“That’s it! I’ve had enough”… Imagine practicing in a state where a new law was introduced that prevented lawsuits for soft tissue injuries, i.e., whiplash, cervical acceleration/deceleration (CAD). That’s exactly what happened to me. That law, called the “Verbal Threshold”, changed the course of my life.

I helped establish a Supreme Court precedent in that Verbal Threshold case establishing the preponderance of evidence and winning the “Great Weight” challenge in proving that soft tissue injuries meet the “serious injury (Verbal) Threshold.” That was 27 years ago. Fast forward to 9 years ago when a friend of mine had been offered only six thousand dollars after suffering 3 herniated discs in the cervical spine which caused permanent injuries leading to functional losses in both Duties Under Duress and Loss Of Enjoyment of Life. It was time to fight back again. This symposium summarizes that fight and how it led to the discovery of methods backed by Authority that would prevent unfair, unrealistic, lowball settlement valuations.

In this symposium, I will reveal 12 of the most damaging unfair claim settlement practice acts (UCSPA’s) used by insurance companies to make unfair settlements and new and different manners in which the plaintiff attorney can elect to engage in order to counter each of them and prevent unfair settlements. I want all plaintiff based attorneys and physicians to understand how soft tissue claims are valued by insurers and devalued by adjusters, IME’s and Colossus and other software’s in today’s BI claim environment and what can be done to prevent it.

The Verbal Threshold law changed the course of my life. I lost everything financially at that time as personal injury was my main business. Anyone involved in the business of personal injury suffered losses except the insurance companies. One of my peers committed suicide over his financial losses. I just lost myself. Sometimes men judge themselves not by who they are but by what they have. That was me. I just lost myself!
It was 1989, in the state of New Jersey and the Verbal Threshold law seemed like it was here to stay. Neither the injured nor their representatives could “mimic” or “parrot” words or make“ conclusory” remarks that injuries were causally related to the accident. An injured party could only sue if the “serious threshold” of injury was met, which was defined as:

  • Death
  • Loss of a fetus
  • Significant disfigurement
  • Dismemberment
  • Significant, consequential loss of use of a body part, function, organ, member or system

The first attempt to reverse the new law was brought before the courts and lost, then appealed and lost. The Verbal Threshold Law remained unchanged, but not unchallenged. Three years later, I wrote a book called Verbal Threshold—Mandates Of Litigation that was successfully used to set precedent at the state supreme court in 1992 and establish the “greater weight” and preponderance of evidence that soft tissue injuries (even suffered at low impact) met the serious injury threshold. The verbal threshold intention to prevent lawsuits for soft tissue cases was overcome.
Talk about fighting. I’ve been fighting my entire professional career. I found it difficult as a chiropractor to gain respect among medical professionals, as I was not regarded as a “real” doctor. Many attorneys believed that jurors would downplay the testimony of a chiropractor. However, I was like a warrior who didn’t depend on a title, rather an attitude—a fighting attitude. Not only did I have to fight the insurance companies but I had to fight the stigma associated with chiropractic among the public and the medical and legal communities. I had to fight twice as hard as any higher-titled medical professional. No one could stop me from my mission. I had also become a victim who, for a short period of time, had been reduced to a mere shadow of the man I once was after losing my livelihood, so I fought with a vengeance. After the attorneys lost in their initial attempts to overturn the Verbal Threshold and losing again at the Appellate Level, I proved that there wasn’t a professional with any title, degree, knowledge or experience who learned more about injury assessment than what I came to discover, starting with the discovery of an order by Congress to the Secretary Of Health And Human Services in 1985 to create a system whereby all adjudicators could arrive at the same medical conclusions in an injury case. The “Comprehensive Injury Index” was very complex and went through several revisions but it led to the basis of my work for my first book and positioned me as the doctor to examine the injured party in the State Supreme Court threshold case and become an expert witness who set precedent. I have been a key-note speaker at 18 State Lawyer Annual Conventions. Today, I am CLE Accredited in 50 States and post online CLE Courses through five CLE Companies and continue to add new courses on: Personal Injury Mandates of Litigation and Ethics as it applies to bodily injury claims.

Attorneys have a need to know about the accumulation of the following factors that set precedent at the State Supreme Court:

  • Medical, Administrative, Legal and Economic Value Drivers of a Bodily Injury Claim
  • Serious Injury Thresholds
  • The Injury Model
  • A.M.A. Guides To Impairment Rating – Especially Resultant Of “Soft-Tissue” Injuries
  • International Classification For Loss Of Functioning, Disability & Health Guidelines
  • DRE (Diagnostic Related Estimate) Categories
  • DBI (Diagnostic Based Injury) Categories
  • Difference between the codes for a; 99204, 99455 and 1191M Level Injury Model Examination
  • Specific Disorders Of The Spine
  • Whole Person Impairment Rating
  • Spine Impairment Summaries
  • Major Injury Categories
  • Abbreviated Injury Scale
  • Trauma Lines
  • Value Drivers
  • Case Maximizers
  • Standard Multipliers
  • Prolonged Modifiers
  • The “Severity Of Soft Tissue Injury Scoring System”
  • The Effects That Injuries Have On “Duties Under Duress” And “Loss Of Enjoyment”

With my fighting attitude, I prevailed. Since then I have become a highly regarded speaker with audiences as large as several thousand. I’ve written several books, receiving many attorney comments on Amazon as “best ever written” for my book entitled: "Direct/Cross Exam-Tactics for the Diligent Medical-Legal Professional". I’ve authored books on impairment rating, rehabilitation protocol, as well as coveted injury examination protocol for impairment, social security and disability evaluations. I authored software named Zeus to counter Colossus for both the medical and legal representative. I teach accredited courses to physicians to evaluate using a high level 1191M-1194M Level Injury Model examination. I instruct on the representation of soft tissue threshold injuries and the production of Value Driver demand letters to overcome the UCSPA’s insurance companies use to make unfair settlements.

In the same year that we overcame the devastating effect of the Verbal Threshold and set State Supreme Court precedence, Allstate hired the McKinsey consultant group who introduced Colossus, the first of the insurance companies’ software, of which there are now 80 different versions designed to cut claims and increase insurer profits! McKinsey is the key architect of unfair “claims practices” in use across the insurance industry today.
27 years ago today, Yes, in 1992, there was a widespread sense among insurers that they were paying too many illegitimate automobile accident claims and that an “aggressive plaintiffs' bar” fueled by a wave of newly allowed attorney advertising, bore much of the blame. That prompted Allstate to retain McKinsey & Co. to implement “COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES.”

One focus of the program McKinsey introduced at Allstate, called “CLAIM CORE PROCESS REDESIGN” (CCPR), was aimed at striking a blow at the plaintiffs’ trend. As part of CCPR, McKinsey brought in the Colossus software system as a method to contain costs by undervaluing or devaluing claims.

Colossus was leased from Computer Science Corporation (CSC). Plaintiffs' attorneys around the country allege that various elements of CCPR go beyond eliminating fraudulent claims and “operate in a systematic way to deny policyholders legitimate benefits.” Most of the cost-reduction strategies McKinsey recommended at Allstate remain in place today and are incorporated by all of the insurance companies. Only a few have been reined in following legal and regulatory challenges in several states.

#2 Reason to Fight the Insurance Companies

“Auto insurers play hardball in minor-crash claims”

“ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- If you are injured in a minor car crash, chances are good that you will be in the fight of your life to get the insurance company to pay all the medical costs you incur -- even if the accident was no fault of your own.”
This hard-hitting CNN report published February 9, 2007 at, revealed that State Farm, Farmers and Allstate all employ software consultant McKinsey & Co.’s strategy of "deny, delay, defend."

This philosophy led to the development of other McKinsey claims reduction programs that you have heard of as:

  • “Minor Impact Defense” State Farm
  • “No Damage No Injury” Farmers
  • “MIST” (Minor Impact Soft Tissue) Allstate

There is a chapter in my book. “PI: Maximizing Settlement Valuation In A Colossus Environment” that shows the proof that injuries occur at low speeds—even if there is no vehicular or property damage. I also produced a video entitled The “ Expert P.I. Witness” that reveals 50 years of auto-crash injury research with the preponderance of evidence to establish that a person can be injured in a low-speed collision and prove soft tissue injuries meet serious injury threshold.

The insurance companies’ valuation of the average soft tissue injury liability claim case reserve:

  • 1992: $15,800
  • 2019: $ 5,800

The reduction in claim severity was a direct result of the “changed evaluation processes” referred to as the McKinsey “Business Processing Improvement” (BPI). The BPI Culture also includes: Colossus, CCPR, the three “minor impact defenses” listed above, 12 predominant UCSPA’s, IME and adjuster disputes, denials, delays, defenses AND there are now 79 OTHER software programs!

In this symposium, I will reveal what can be done to offset the insurance industries’ “Business Processing Improvement” (BPI) Culture” to make unfair, unrealistic, low-ball settlement offers.

As controversial as this may be, I like to say: This is information you could use or money you will lose!

Reason #3 to Fight the Insurance Companies Today

Twenty-seven years later, I am fighting with an even more aggressive approach to assist the plaintiff position in medical, administrative, legal and economic factors to prevent unfair settlements. The difference today is that the insurance companies use software to value claimsand if Colossus wasn’t bad enough, they’ve adopted the “ Business Processing Improvement” (BPI) Culture with 12 UCSPA’s including Claim Core Process Redesign (CCPR), which a Supreme Court ruled is…”harmful ro public interest.” These tactics are designed to increase insurers’ profits.
It is shown, within the course of this symposium, how to construct a case with a totally different approach establishing the preponderance of evidence and win the “greater weight” of evidence for soft tissue claims, including a new was to write a demand for higher settlement valuation.

Why Do We Need A New Way To Write A Demand?

The answer is: BPI.

BPI has 3 requirements for the legal demand as follows:

  1. Narrative style demands are no longer admissible evidence
  2. Attorney must include a table formatting the whole person impairment rating
  3. The demand must “mirror” the medical records

After a review of many demand letters, I had assumed that if one of the largest and most respected law firms wasn’t formulating their demand according to these new BPI requirements as well as not including all the possible decision points and value drivers in their demands, many others weren’t either, and I was correct.
Missing Decision Points And Value Drivers Lead To Low Settlement Valuation!
So again, I decided to fight back! This symposium reveals how I fought back successfully, wrote another book and created an On-line Interactive Tool to prevent unfair settlements. I Beta Tested it in Attorney offices nationwide and am winning AGAIN and will reveal this to any attorney who has an open mind and is willing to incorporate even some of these techniques, what is being done today to offset, prevent or stop unfair, unrealistic, low-ball settlements, eliminate varying opinions, establish the preponderance, win the “Greater Weight” of the Evidence Challenges and enhance settlement value.

Yes—there are going to be things you’ll read that are new and/or seem strange or maybe you will have doubts. Some will be simple as coming to understand:

  • Insurers’ assign 25% of the value of the medical claim to the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) Rating
  • There must be ten or more diagnoses in a Colossus claim
  • Diagnoses need to converted into and be represented by an impairment rating
  • You must cite the WPI Rating by what edition, chapter, table and page of AMA Guides was used in the determination of the WPI.
  • The WPI must be represented in a Table format and included in the demand

Unfortunately, I’ve seen apathy and fixed ideas in personal injury. But the one thing we can all agree on is that unfair settlements exist and must be dealt an effective blow. You have to be realistic when you look at what’s going on in the P.I. arena, laced with unrealistic settlement offers. Look for why this is continuing to happen and look for how to prevent it. Here it is! In this material are the why and the how to change/stop/prevent and yes, even reverse unfair settlements.
Many users of this material, including some of the largest law firms, highest volume and highest P.I. monetary earners, solo practitioners and paralegals alike, have thanked me personally, told me their lives were “good” before they used this material but that adopting my recommendation for a new demand letter, including the decision points and value drivers insurance companies use, has made their lives better, saved them countless hours, earned them countless thousands in additional compensation for their clients and that I make every day at their practice seem like their birthday.
This information will not only enlighten you, it will save legal time and spend, help reduce the low-ball settlement values and assist in the production of one of the most thorough demand letters for attorneys ever created, as you will soon come to learn about within this symposium…unless you are set on continuing to do what you’ve been doing.
Basically, without this knowledge and this new method available to fight against the unfair settlement valuations, there is little to nothing that can be done otherwise, except to be a victim to the insurance companies’ unrealistic settlement valuations. Even going to court to challenge offers without the principles contained within this symposium will likely result in unfavorable outcomes.

NOTE: This symposium is not intended for anyone who has fixed ideas that nothing can be done to enhance settlement value! And please, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard: ‘there is nothing you can do in my county’. This symposium is intended to help you make a decision to do something different and yes, even change the way you conduct the business of making your demand to insurance companies. It is not a demand leading to a courtroom trial, rather a demand for a fair settlement offer that will likely be met in a short period of time without any consideration on the part of the insurance company to try the case when faced with this new demand.

Since its inception, no insurer has taken a case assembled in this manner to court!

It utilizes Authorities, prior court rulings, administrative and judicial hearings and rulings that establishes the “preponderance of evidence” wins the “greater weight” of evidence challenges in soft tissues cases which the insurance company will find difficult to deny, delay or defend. This effective, different demand incorporates “decision points” and “value drivers” that convert to dollar settlement values established by each insurance company’s own rate and formula.
It may not be entirely necessary for you to understand all the medical subject matter contained within. What is important is that you understand how it translates into settlement value and that you can recognize whether the physician includes and documents the medical decision points and value drivers that comprise the four main factors that determine settlement value, taught at this symposium.

You see, unfortunately you can’t make a demand for monetary factors that aren’t medically documented and you can’t raise the value of the case more than the total of the decision points and value drivers that are both medically documented and then presented to the insurance company in your demand letter in the correct language, format and sequence.

There are 48 factors that should be incorporated in the demand. We will reveal a checklist to compare your current demand to the requirements of a Colossus demand to avoid missing value drivers.
This symposium explains the factors that input valuation lumped into a category called: “Decision Points”, which is a sematic process referred to as “Procedural Intelligence Codes,” and is how the insurance companies determine settlement valuations using their formula entitled”

Decision Point To Dollar Translation Percentage Multiplier Formula.

When settlement values are low, it’s mostly because the decision points and value drivers are missing.
The problem of low settlement valuation is that if one is not aware of the decision points and value drivers and/or they don’t exist in the medical documentation and demand letter in the correct language, format and sequence to interface with the insurance companies software’s, you lose the value for them.

The purpose of this symposium is for you to be able to prevent unrealistic, unfair, low-ball offers and eliminate varying medical opinions. You will be introduced to new, effective methods of overcoming unfair settlement valuation. Make of this as you will after you understand the factors, decision points and value drivers that determine the settlement value, how they are disputed and denied and what to do about it starting by including them in your next demand.


  1. How many P.I. cases do you have and/or receive with unfair, unrealistic, low settlements?
  2. How many cases do you have with litigation obstacles, varying opinions and hurdles that are difficult to overcome resulting in unrealistic offers or are stalled?
  3. How many unfair claim settlement practice acts and violations of the Ethics Codes of an Adjuster does it take to change the way you make your demand?

I didn’t fight this battle for myself alone. I fought it for all physicians, plaintiff attorneys and the injured parties, to derive a fair, equitable settlement valuation which means eliminating varying opinions, establishing the preponderance, winning the greater weight and preventing UCSPA’s leading to unfair valuation.

Now there is no longer a need or a place for apathy or fixed ideas that may have you tricked into believing that low settlements are “just the way it is,” or that “they’re here to stay” or “there’s nothing that can be done about it,” particularly if you seek a way to solve problems associated with:

  • Low-speed accidents with no visible property damage
  • Injuries that can’t be seen by the naked eye
  • When clinical findings are not obvious
  • When physicians disagree about the type of injuries
  • When evaluators argue about the degree of impairment
  • When there were prior accidents or pre-existing conditions

Those situations occur a lot of the time but there is now something that can be done about all of that!
If you seek a way to save legal time and spend, prevent low settlement valuation, enhance settlement value, eliminate a lot of the common liability hurdles and varying opinions, establish preponderance, win the “Great Weight” challenges, level the playing field, finally demand fair settlement value instead of receiving unrealistic low values (and did I say, save time and money), then invest in this symposium to learn about a new method of formulating a demand that is proven effective.

Fight Back,
Dr. Frank Liberti