______________________________________________________________
The best time of year to get cheaper car Insurance
There is no doubt that
Ontario is by far the most expensive province to insure a car in Canada. Drivers in the province pay considerably higher rates than drivers in other provinces. A 2016 report indicated that drivers in Ontario paid an
average of $1,437 while drivers in other cities paid much less. The cities of Toronto, Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, and Vaughan are among the most expensive cities to insure a car in the province, with an average of between $1700 to $2300 annual premiums. According to insurers, the premiums are high in Ontario because claims settlement costs are high and there’s a lot of fraud.
_____________________________________________________________
What Do Canadian Doctors Think Of Marijuana As Medicine?
One Ontario doctor is trying to backpedal her way out of a disparaging comment she made about cannabis mere days before legalization goes into effect. President of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Nadia Alam, walked back her suggestion that cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs, saying “What I would say is that I misspoke, I misunderstood,” to CBC News.
_____________________________________________________________
[
1]
The respondent was injured in a car accident. She sued the appellants. Just before the trial, the appellants admitted liability. The trial proceeded as an assessment of damages before a jury. The appellants alleged that the respondent was malingering. They were ordered to pay substantial damages.
[
9]
The appellants argue that the trial judge showed a negative attitude towards the defence experts. We disagree. Any comments in the trial judge’s ruling on admissibility (Mamado v. Fridson,
2016 ONSC 4080 (CanLII)) would not have been before the jury. In any event, we read nothing inappropriate in this ruling. Moreover, the trial judge’s comments in her instructions were accurate and balanced. She advised the jury of the proportion of medico-legal work (in terms of time spent or income earned) in the practices of Dr. Chen (respondent’s expert), Dr. Soric (appellants’ expert) and Dr. Reznek (appellants’ expert), and the proportion of that work performed for plaintiffs or defendants.
[28] The Defendant called two expert witnesses to refute Ms. Mamado’s claims: Dr. Rajka Soric, a physiatrist, and Dr. Lawrie Reznek, a psychiatrist. Aside from the fact that neither expert addressed the threshold in their testimony, the evidence from both witnesses contains serious flaws:
Dr. Rajka Soric:
• Dr. Soric misread Ms. Mamado’s pre-accident medical history. She was convinced that in May 2010 Dr. Peck had noted that the plaintiff had “intractable” back pain before the accident, when in fact the note read “intermittent”. Dr. Soric conceded this error most grudgingly, and then insisted the error was irrelevant to her conclusion despite having previously emphasized it in her testimony;
• She had no recollection of how much time she spent reviewing Ms. Mamado’s brief and preparing her report;
• Several of the tests she claimed to have performed were not documented in her report;
• Dr. Soric appeared indignant when it was revealed that out of her income last year, which was in the range of $450,000 – $470,000, the majority came from assessments for defence lawyers and insurance companies. (She has never testified on behalf of a plaintiff, except on one occasion when the plaintiff also happened to be her patient). Incredibly, she is of the view that she can be seen as entirely neutral no matter to whom she owes much of her livelihood.
Dr. Lawrie Reznek:
• It is curious that the Defendants referred Ms. Mamado to Dr. Reznek, a psychiatrist, when none of her treating practitioners ever referred her to a psychiatrist and their own expert, Dr. Soric, recommended that she be seen by a psychologist;
• Dr. Reznek administered the SIMS test to Ms. Mamado (designed to detect malingering), and she scored 19. As her score was only slightly over the threshold of 16 (out of 75), he could not say on a balance of probabilities that it suggested exaggeration; he also admitted that her learning disability could have affected her performance on the test, and there are more extensive tests to detect malingering which he did not perform;
• Dr. Reznek said the only sure way to detect malingering is if you observe the claimant doing something she says she cannot; significantly, the Defendant did not provide him with any of the surveillance conducted;
• As for the “three strikes” he relied upon to conclude Ms. Mamado was exaggerating her symptoms, in cross-examination he agreed that (1) he would view anyone as suspicious who may be injured in an accident and end up before him for a medical-legal assessment; (2) he overstated her physical complaints, as she acknowledged some were “not constant” and that her pain was variable; and (3) he read Dr. Peck’s pre-accident note as stating she had “10” months of back pain, when in fact Dr. Peck wrote that she had a “few” months of back pain;
• He asserted repeatedly that if, as Ms. Mamado claimed, the accident triggered her depression and stress disorder, one should have seen evidence of that within the first three months following the accident. Then, in cross-examination, he admitted that in fact there was such evidence, as in January 2011 – two months after the accident – Dr. Andrew Shaul, a psychologist, documented that Ms. Mamado was suffering from depression, anxiety and other accident related symptoms. This error significantly eroded his opinion;
• Even though half of his time and two thirds of his annual income (of approximately $400,000) is devoted to medical-legal work for defendants, he insisted that does not influence him “in any way”.
[29] Even with those flaws, the core evidence from Drs. Soric and Reznek in fact supports the plaintiff. Dr. Soric agreed that Ms. Mamado was suffering from chronic pain. Although she would describe it more as a chronic pain “sensation” than a disorder, she allowed that a chronic pain sensation can be disabling and can prevent a person from returning to work or going to school.
[30] As for Dr. Reznek, although he did not feel Ms. Mamado satisfied the diagnostic criteria for major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or pain disorder, he did feel that she had “real symptoms” and “real distress”.
Licenced to Bill – Globe and Mail
Hired gun in a lab coat: How medical experts help car insurers fight accident claims
Dr. Soric made $450,000 in 2015, mostly from assessments for insurance companies, and yet “incredibly” still believed she could be seen as neutral, a judge commented at a trial this June. Dr. Lawrence Reznek, another psychiatrist, revealed in a 2013 case he spends 25% of his time on assessments — mostly for insurers — but the income is double what he earns from his clinical practice the rest of the time.
_______________________________________________________________
An older article but we are hearing that inflating mileage to inflate premiums might be on the rise here in Ontario.
Suit: Allstate altered mileage records – Class-action says goal was higher premiums
