 |
  |
|
Very occasionally, the medical investigation involved can uncover information that can be of immediate, non-economic benefit to survivors. The one case I have in mind involved the presence of a disease that had been all but ignored throughout the course of a fairly new marriage. In this case, the deceased had a medical condition that would have certainly shortened her life but, in addition, one that also posed a major risk to her spouse. As a result of information developed during the investigation process, the husband sought medical treatment for the condition he unknowingly had inherited from his wife and today is doing just fine.
Impairments to a normal work or life expectancy often involve issues far less obvious than the one discussed above. At times there is more than one factor present and, in such cases, all factors must be weighted for their dependence or independence on one another. In addition to medical impairments, one should be cognizant of lifestyle hazards (substance abuse, stress, physical activity etc) and occupational hazards (miners, for instance, exhibit mortality rates that are 50% greater than "average"). Is it reasonable to assume that, if some individuals are going to exhibit sub-standard mortality, that some will show evidence of being "super-standard"? Although I have never addressed this question in either a report or in court, a case could be made for such a stance. Work life expectancy probably would not be greatly affected, however, life expectancy (and especially healthy life expectancy) could be argued as being greater than average. Studies have shown, for instance, that populations among certain religious denominations exhibit lower than expected mortality. The Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists are examples of such populations and probably owe their super-standard outlook to salutary health habits. |
