You have part 1 Resistance within and can't wait to see what happens next? I feel the same way. Make yourself a hot or cold drink of your choice, sit back and enjoy the show.
What is it about?
For once, I'll get to the point without making a big fuss. There's a contradiction here, it means you did a sloppy job and I don't think it's OK, see? That's why the shit falls on your head and now you have four times as much work to do with it.
What do I demand?
First comes the part that I already touched on in the first part (read more in here). Because this is just too beautiful and I could read it through another hundred times, here it is again.
In my view, this actually says everything that needs to be said, but we must always bear in mind that our interlocutor on the other side has no idea. No idea what we are talking about. No idea what our health is like. No idea what it means to suffer from ALS. But unfortunately an MDK on his side, who employs enough lawyers who know how it goes in court. So we have to beat them with their own weapons.
If the case ends up in court, we have to make sure that judges also get an overview quickly. Because it is precisely the understanding of the actual matter (illness) behind the main matter (opposition in the opposition proceedings before the court) by relevant persons that often enough causes proceedings to fail. There is a lack of understanding and time to prepare adequately. If there are so many individual points that are objected to as in an appeal against the MDK - believe me, I find errors in every expert opinion - you cannot assume that the judges know all the facts when it comes to the hearing....
I help myself by specifying my assertions in detail and, for the purpose of proving all the individual characteristics, I only really step on the gas on the next few pages.
Deadline and consequences
This is also one of those things that I could have despaired of all too often in my professional life, but also in my private life - yes, actually especially in my private life. Inconsistent action. It's like our climate policy. Setting one climate target after another (if at all), but buckling as soon as it comes to fossil fuels. The biggest bang for the buck is useless if it says between the lines that I'm going to try a contradiction and if it's rejected, well, then it won't be. No. There's nothing. Your expert opinion is shit. You'll never get away with it in court and you know it.
So you can use this as a Lawsuit preparation understand.
By the way, I'm skipping a few paragraphs of my writing. Otherwise we'll still be sitting here tomorrow. My aim is to convey the big picture.I will make the complete document available for download free of charge at the end.
Further in the text. Meet the deadline or I'm out and you'll hear from the court.
Of course, there is something a bit threatening about the way I have formulated this. This cannot be generalised at all. You should be careful that you don't meet the criteria for coercion under § 240 of the Criminal Code and thereby make yourself liable to prosecution. That would be irony of fate. Or sarcasm of fate? Does such a thing even exist? Sarcasm of fate? Well, assuming you believe in fate. Which I don't. In any case, such a cross-beat would be exceedingly embarrassing.
As far as the Medical Service for Health and Long-Term Care Insurance (MDK) is concerned, its expert opinion establishing my need for care - or establishing non-need - is such a clear case to me that I practically feel like a creditor who has been cheated out of his money and his benefit. Which, in my opinion, makes the whole thing okay again. In any case, it's worth the small risk for me. Everyone has to decide for themselves how far they - oh, sorry, they, fuck gender - are willing to go. That's why I explain each paragraph in such detail.
Justification
With this reasoning, I start my actual argumentation. Of course, this will look different in each individual case. Here, too, I like to start with a brief introduction that tells the reader what to expect. And why they can expect it.
That is not absolutely necessary. No one is as meticulous a bean counter as I am when it comes to spotting - let's call it - inconsistencies in the performance of the other side. And my letters are accordingly long. You'll see.
So just to put that in perspective, we're currently at maybe 15% with my appeal. Without attachments, of course.
Such a transition could look something like this, ideally shorter than all my babbling here;
At this point, I would like to take the liberty of objecting to an answer in the form of a standard letter from the drawer that is quite obviously not applicable or not applicable in parts and/or not applicable in other ways. Not because I want to tease. Well, not just. I'm sure you remember what I said about your interlocutors on the other side. They are only human beings too. And what is man by nature? That's right, lazy. Whereby I prefer the term "efficient". Of course, if there is the possibility, he will first reject everything with a standard letter. So let's take that option away from him right away. After all, not everyone can be like me. The likelihood that you will come across someone as messed up as I am, who spends Sundays and public holidays explaining sample letters of an opposition procedure, is probably close to zero.
In practice, it could look something like this:
Apropos, I also have a "blanket statement" from the drawer today.
And now we're going to make a sweeping strike. Almost.