• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

IME

Alvarez and Unica 2017-10-13 Arbitration, Final Decision, FSCO 5374

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/5374

Unica was not only wrong about the analysis of the injuries in relation to the MIG, but its persistent “no” to requests for funding for assessments resulted (as it was warned) in exacerbating the Applicant’s injuries to the point where he now suffers from chronic pain.  The Form 1 for attendant care was submitted after Dr. Galati’s report.  That assessment clearly identified ongoing musculoskeletal impairments, as evidenced in the Applicant’s adjustments to daily living such as having to go onto his knees to make his bed.  A reasonable insurer would have considered the additional information and sent it on to Dr. Galati for an addendum report.  A reasonable insurer would have noted the ongoing problems with hearing, even four months after the accident, and would have reconsidered its refusal of the neurologist’s assessment.

 

Unica failed to respond promptly to reasonable requests for approval of examinations, and waited an unreasonable period to arrange its own assessment with respect to the psychological assessment.  It failed to arrange an assessment (or even an addendum) based on new information provided in the Form 1 and in the 2017 reports concerning chronic pain.

 

Unica has the institutional knowledge developed in the senior levels of its adjusters to flag the potential that untreated or poorly treated injuries can lead to chronic pain.  There is little evidence that Unica’s adjusters grappled in any way with their Insured’s complaints and injuries and the potential long term effects which are now clearly outlined.  I do not accept that the laissez-faire approach Unica followed constitutes adjusting the file in good faith or constitutes acting reasonably.  The result was an unreasonable delay in assessing and treating the Applicant’s injuries because the benefits claimed were denied.

 

I find that Unica has unreasonably delayed payment of benefits, and that a special award is appropriate.  The Applicant calculated the total monetary amount of the claim at $20,760.56, including the attendant care claim and interest.  Unica calculated the claim based solely on attendant care at $6,022.85—$397 per month for one year plus interest.  The special award is to be no more than 50% of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award, together with interest on all amounts then owing including unpaid interest.[34]  Since the attendant care claim was not approved but the remaining claims have been, I calculate the special award on the net amount of $20,760.56 less $6,022.85.  Unica’s failings are not the most egregious, but an award is appropriate to inspire more careful attention on its part to claims like this one.  The special award is fixed at $5,000.00.

Judge rejects Insurer’s Hired-Gun Expert and agrees that Plaintiff’s Knee Injury meets Threshold for Damages

The 2017 civil action, Shaw v. Mkheyan, arose when the injured plaintiff brought a claim for damages against the Defendants, as a result of a 2009 motor vehicle collision between the parties. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff general (non-pecuniary) damages, as well as damages for future health care costs and future housekeeping expenses.

https://www.personalinjurylawyerservice.ca/blog/court-rules-that-car-accident-caused-plaintiffs-osteoarthritis-to-become-symptomatic

16-002861 v Aviva Insurance Company, 2017 CanLII 62160 (ON LAT)

[40.]     The applicant submitted that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payment regarding the medical benefits for physiotherapy services and the cost of psychiatric and orthopaedic assessments.  I agree that the payment for physiotherapy services and the psychiatric and orthopaedic assessments were unreasonably withheld for the reasons that follow.
 
[41.]     Regarding the physiotherapy services, the respondent does not dispute that the applicant has chronic pain syndrome, but whether the treatment will lead to the applicant’s recovery. Drs. West and Gerber indicated that the applicant will not likely recover from the pain despite appropriate treatment.  I am of the view that the goal for treatment for this applicant should be pain relief and reduction given his chronic pain diagnosis. As such, I do not agree with the respondent’s rationale that given the applicant is not able to recover from his injuries that further physiotherapy treatment is not reasonable and necessary.  
 
[42.]     Regarding the assessments, given that Drs. West and Gerber’s assessments were dated and the persistent nature of the applicant’s chronic pain, I find that it was reasonable for the applicant to request to undergo new assessments in order to determine if the assessors could recommend other treatments at this stage of his chronic pain.  I am not persuaded by the respondent’s position regarding the denial of the assessments given the nature of the applicant’s chronic pain and the timing of his prior assessments.
 
[43.]     Regarding the length of the respondent’s delay, the respondent delayed payment for 1-3 years depending on the treatment plan.  The delay in payment of the treatment plans delayed the applicant’s ability to effectively manage his chronic condition.  According to the applicant, he had to incur the cost of the physiotherapy services, which has impacted him financially.

Arbitrator rules that Applicant for Accident Benefits must submit to Insurer’s request for Medical Examination

A claimant and their insurer recently sought to have their insurance dispute over payment of income replacement benefits decided by an adjudicator for the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The dispute arose when the insurance company, Co-operators General Insurance Company, stopped paying a claimant’s income replacement benefits because the claimant refused to attend a medical examination requested by the insurer.

https://www.ilolaw.ca/blogpost/arbitrator-rules-that-applicant-must-submit-to-insurers-request-for-medical-examination

FAIR letter to Ontario MPPs and the media

They say you reap what you sow but in the case of Ontario’s vulnerable and injured car accident survivors – they are reaping the sorrow for poorly conceived auto insurance legislation and a harmful lack of oversight for medical ‘experts’ examinations/reports and that means there’s a long line-up to have their cases heard in court.

 

The Insurer Medical Examinations (IMEs) are out of control and the recent media coverage in the Toronto Star and the National Post has exposed this seamy underbelly of medicine. Insurer ‘experts’ are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, some at $77,000 a month, and the medical evidence is so poorly crafted, so partisan and unacceptable that Ontario judges are at a loss on how to stem the dishonest testimony.  It’s widespread, it’s shameful and it isn’t going to stop until the government steps up and speaks out for the ill and injured and forces Colleges to do their duty.

 

http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/OPEN-LETTER-sent-to-MPPs-and-media-Sept-8-2017.pdf

More mediation, less adversity needed in accident cases: Ford

The adversarial legal system creates ethical challenges for medical experts and allows simple cases to become unnecessarily lengthy and expensive, says Toronto orthopaedic spine and trauma surgeon Dr. Michael Ford.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/none-more-mediation-less-adversity-needed-in-accident-cases-ford.html

Sharma v Stewart, 2017 ONSC 4333 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/h50xw

[31]               Second, there was the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel sought to cross-examine Dr. Rezneck on findings made about his reports in previous cases.  I ruled that cross-examining an expert about judicial findings in previous cases where that expert had testified was not within the scope of proper cross-examination.  The argument on this ruling, and the consideration of the cases that counsel for the Plaintiff filed consumed a couple of hours of court time.  Raising this issue unnecessarily lengthened the trial time, and it should also be considered in a minor way in assessing the costs.

To read more about this assessor see: http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Reznek-Laurie-Psychiatrist.pdf

Choosing experts: authority over convenience

Choosing the right medical expert in a wrongful death or serious injury lawsuit is vital, so taking the time to decide which one to engage is crucial, says Toronto critical injury lawyer Josh Nisker.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/josh-nisker-choosing-experts-authority-over-convenience.html

“Reasons” for an Examination Under Oath

If requested by an accident benefits insurer, a person injured in a car accident “shall” submit to an examination under oath.  These examinations can take hours and cover all aspects of the accident, nature of the injuries, the types of benefits claimed, etc.  If a request for an examination under oath is made, the insurer must provide to the insured, pursuant to section 33(4)(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS“), the “reason or reasons” for the examination under oath.

https://www.thomsonrogers.com/news/reasons-for-an-examination-under-oath/

Report explores hundreds of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board cases that ignore evidence

Information from IAVGO Community Legal Clinic: The WSIB claims that drastic reductions in benefits costs are the result of improved “return to work and recovery” programs. The 2016 decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal tell a different and troubling story. Appeals Tribunal decision-makers have commented that the WSIB’s decisions are “unreasonable” in ignoring the “unanimous opinions” of doctors, are based on “not a single word of medical or other reliable evidence”, and would place the worker at “medical risk”.

http://yourlegalrights.on.ca/news/report-explores-hundreds-workplace-safety-and-insurance-board-cases-ignore-evidence?tid=7

http://iavgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/No-Evidence-Final-Report.pdf