Which practice is considered harmful to the integrity of the claims process?

Ignoring conflicting evidence is considered harmful to the integrity of the claims process because it undermines the objectivity and fairness that are essential in evaluating a workers' compensation claim. When an adjuster chooses to overlook or disregard evidence that contradicts the claim, it can lead to biased decision-making, ultimately resulting in an inaccurate assessment of the claim's validity. The claims process relies heavily on factual, comprehensive evaluations, so acknowledging all available evidence, including conflicting information, ensures that decisions are made based on a complete understanding of the situation. This practice not only affects the outcomes for individual claimants but can also erode trust in the workers' compensation system as a whole if stakeholders perceive a lack of fairness or transparency.