On an autumn morning in 2018 a line formed in front of the red‑brick building at 27 Boulevard Helvétique in Geneva. A man using a wheelchair stood among roughly a hundred people ahead of Christian (name changed) and dozens more behind him.
Allegations of systematic misconduct at the Corela clinic
Christian relates that a fellow patient – a roofer who became paraplegic after a fall – was told by the Corela clinic that his injury was a suicide attempt. The claim allowed his insurer to halt his disability pension.
Another case involved a Geneva patient who was ordered to return to work while still hospitalized for several weeks at the University Hospitals (HUG).
“A patient jumps in front of a bus”
Hundreds of former patients describe the clinic’s assessments as aggressive and its explanations as implausible. The common objective, according to these accounts, was to reduce costs for private insurers covering loss of earnings after accidents.
Private insurers supplied the bulk of Corela’s revenue, accounting for about 97 % of the clinic’s patients, as documented in earlier investigations.
Insurance partners and the scale of referrals
From 2003 to 2018 a dozen insurers – including Allianz, Zurich, Generali, Groupe Mutuel, Swica and Suva – were identified as “preferred partners” of Corela in the prosecutor’s filing.
Groupe Mutuel, for its part, routinely referred at least one hundred building‑sector work‑injury cases per year to the clinic, according to a former member of the relevant joint commission.
Legal outcomes and the culture of silence
Despite numerous complaints, none of the insurers has launched formal action against Corela. A physician quoted anonymously said the insurers “earned too much” from the arrangement to pursue litigation now.
In a separate dispute, nine out of ten claimants who challenged Corela‑based decisions succeeded, forcing their insurer to repay over 700 000 CHF in benefits.
What could happen next?
Victims may continue to hesitate before filing complaints due to fear of losing existing benefits, a sentiment echoed by several interviewees.
Analysts suggest that increased public scrutiny could pressure insurers to reassess their referral practices, possibly leading to stricter oversight of medical‑assessment providers.
If regulatory bodies decide to investigate, insurers might face demands for greater transparency regarding referral volumes and payment terms.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people were in the line outside the clinic?
Christian estimated about one hundred people ahead of him and several dozen behind.
What claim did the clinic make about the paraplegic roofer?
The clinic asserted that the roofer’s injury resulted from a suicide attempt, which allowed his insurer to stop his disability pension.
Which insurers were mentioned as having partnerships with Corela?
Allianz, Zurich, Generali, Groupe Mutuel, Swica and Suva were identified as preferred partners in the prosecutor’s indictment.
What are your thoughts on the role of private insurers in shaping medical assessments for injury claims?