Not only negotiating the terrible aftermath of a significant vehicle accident, but a family in crisis is also fighting an insurance company for her repatriation from the United States, trying to keep their loved one alive.
What became of Jane Rubens in the US?
While visiting family in St. Louis, Missouri, 73-year-old Jane Rubens from Edinburgh was severely hurt on November 1 after being hit by an SUV. Along with several hemorrhages and significant brain damage, the crash sent her into a coma. She has been hospitalized at St. Louis University Hospital since then, having five surgeries—including a cranioplasty to remove part of her skull. Her state is still critical; physicians cannot forecast her future.
Her children, Cat and Andrew, have been at her side during this horrific period, trying to control the enormous medical situation and make decisions on her behalf. 34-year-old lawyer Cat highlighted the emotional strain: “We were already having the worst time.” Mum might not survive this; we do not know. And then to cope with all this.
Why did AXA Partners call for her repatriation?
Mrs. Rubens had bought a thorough travel insurance package from AXA Partners before her trip, supposed to cover medical expenses up to £15 million ($19 million). Still, the policy now causes more anxiety than it does comfort.
Although doctors advised against relocating Mrs. Rubens owing to the degree of her injuries, AXA Partners told the family she would need to be deported to the UK within days. Mrs. Rubens was not yet stable enough for the long, dangerous trip back to Edinburgh, as agreed upon by the family’s doctors in Missouri and NHS specialists from the UK.
The insurance company believed she was “fit to fly” and wanted her to return immediately despite these medical opinions. “Mom needed several more weeks of treatment in the US,” Cat Rubens said, “the medical advice was clear.” AXA, nevertheless, insisted on relocating her.
Why Would AXA Partners Demand She Move Against Medical Advice?
On Sunday, AXA Partners said they would cancel the insurance coverage should the family reject the repatriation plan by the following day. The AXA Partners email said: “We will not provide any cover if you reject our decision and do not want to be repatriated.” The family was left in an unenviable situation: consent to repatriation they did not believe was medically safe or risk losing the insurance coverage Mrs. Rubens depended on for continuous treatment.
“It was an extraordinarily challenging scenario,” Cat said. “Although we lacked complete knowledge of the repatriation plan, we felt we had no option except to agree. When we were not even given the name of a doctor who would see her in the UK, how could we trust them?
Why did the insurer deny the family clarity and support?
Apart from the strain to embrace the repatriation, the Rubens family also had to deal with a lack of openness and encouragement from AXA Partners. Cat was informed they could not disclose specifics on the journey, like the number of stops or the degree of sedation Mrs. Rubens would receive while traveling when she called the insurer seeking further information. AXA Partners also forbade the family from speaking with any senior staff member, underwriters, or medical team.
To exacerbate things, one of the St. Louis doctors tending to Mrs. Rubens sought to contact AXA Partners personally but ran against resistance. The doctor could not interact with a UK professional and was denied access to information.
In what way did social media support the family's case?
Cat Rubens posted the family’s hardship on social media, desperate for aid. Her post about the insurance company’s disregard for medical advice immediately attracted much attention.
“I wanted not to be public, but we felt backed into a corner,” Cat remarked. “I had to bring our worries forward for public consumption without choice.”
AXA Partners responded immediately to the social media post, phoning the family to apologize for the trouble created. The insurer then guaranteed the Rubens family that they would not proceed with any repatriation decisions without their permission and without consulting the medical staff in Missouri and the receiving hospital in the UK.
What did AXA Partners say following the apologies?
AXA Partners sent a statement showing sorrow for the circumstances of the Rubens family following the apologies. “We are sorry for the trouble Ms. Rubens and her family have gone through while claiming,” the statement said. “We will keep in touch with Ms. Rubens’ family over the next few days to help them; we have already spoken with them.”
AXA Partners underlined that the family and the treating doctors would be consulted on the repatriation decision and that their medical team would assist the family in deciding on the best course of action.
What Future Is the Rubens Family?
The Rubens family’s situation is still challenging. Although Mrs. Rubens wants to be returned to the UK for ongoing treatment, they insist that any repatriation must be done under the direction of the medical professionals treating her right now. They believe AXA Partners will now give the recommendations of these experts top priority instead of advocating a quick move that would endanger her life.
“We just want the best care for Mum,” Cat Rubens said. We are fighting for exactly that. Her health and future define it, not about the insurance.
The family is waiting for more changes, and they still have to cope emotionally and practically with a complicated medical problem while also trying to make sure their loved one gets the finest treatment available.
Add a Comment