EXPLAINING JUDGES' OBSESSION WITH THE ONUS OF PROOF IN DISABILITY CASES
AbstractThe issue of onus of proof has played a large role in cases where judges have had to decide an individual's entitlement to long-term disability insurance benefits. The explanation for this appears to be that judges are increasingly presented with allegedly disabling illnesses which cannot be objectively evaluated. This makes it difficult for both plaintiff and defendant to prove anything; hence, the issue of who has the burden of proof is in the forefront of such cases. This paper examines the trends evident in the case-law and suggests an alternative procedure for the judiciary .
Download data is not yet available.