1.866.621.1551
Servicing Toronto, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton and surrounding areas.
Thursday, June 22, 2017

 
 
 

 
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Posts Tagged ‘catastrophic’

Ontario Court of Appeal Rules on Pastore Decision in Favour of Claimants

A major decision with respect to the definition of “catastrophic” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was released by the Ontario Court of Appeal today.

It its decision, Pastore v. Aviva Canada [2012 ONCA 642], the Court has supported the findings of the Director’s Delegate at the Financial Services of Ontario, who decided that only one functional impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder at the marked level is necessary to declare a person’s injuries as catastrophic.  Furthermore, the decision supports that a marked psychological impairment caused by physical pain is valid for the purpose of determining a catastrophic impairment.

The decision can be read in its entirety by clicking here. Pastore Appeal

 

Attendant Care and Treatment can be Claimed Simultaneously

A recent decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) confirms that an insurer cannot necessarily deduct attendant care benefits from times when a claimant is receiving medical or rehabilitation treatment.

In Ms. T.N. and The Personal Insurance Company of Canada [FSCO A06-000399] the Arbitrator Suesan Alves stated the following:

The Personal submitted that it should be permitted to deduct chiropractic, osteopathic, massage therapy and six hours of rehab social worker and one hour of social worker treatment from any award of attendant care benefits. I disagree.

The benefits that The Personal seeks permission to deduct are provided under section 14 and 15 of the Schedule. Attendant care benefits are provided under section 16 of the Schedule. Each section of the Schedule provides for different and distinct services.

The focus of the Schedule is to provide services which meet the needs of an insured person. Under the statutory scheme, an insured person is entitled to medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits based on the criteria of need or necessity and reasonableness. In this context, it seems an odd concept to contemplate deducting one equally necessary benefit from another. If that were permissible, then an insured person would be required to choose, for example, between receiving assistance with a bath from his or her attendant, or receiving a physiotherapy treatment.

I am not persuaded that double payment would result from the provision of both attendant care and medical and rehabilitation benefits. Although the Form 1s filed by the Applicant contemplate the provision of attendant care 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the rate prescribed for care in the completed forms is $7.00 per hour. Effective March 31, 2010, the minimum wage in Ontario became $10.25 per hour.

In a letter dated October 9, 2008, the claims handler informed counsel for the Applicant that the cost of the services of a certified support worker from a private agency which provides attendant care services in Ms. N’s area is $21.00 per hour. If Ms. N purchases attendant care services from that agency, she will be able to purchase approximately eight hours of attendant care per day.

I do not see attendant care and treatment as being mutually exclusive. Had the Legislature intended to permit the deduction of medical and rehabilitation benefits from attendant care benefits it could easily have done so expressly. For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the Legislature intended that other benefits would be deducted from attendant care. For these reasons, I reject The Personal’s submission that I permit the deduction of chiropractic, osteopathic, massage therapy and six hours of rehab social worker and one hour of social worker from any award of attendant care benefits.

Medical and Legal Communities Speak Out Against Proposed Changes to “Catastrophic” Definition

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) and Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers has launched a massive media campaign against proposed changes to the definition of a catastrophic impairment for victims of motor vehicle accidents.

The changes being considered, already posted on our blog (you can access this blog article by clicking here), would significantly reduce the number of accident victims with serious injuries from having their claims deemed as catastrophic.

For example, a paraplegic who is able walk just a short distance would not be deemed catastrophic, even though their medical and rehabilitation needs would be very significant.  Under the proposed changes, these individuals would have to pay for any treatment beyond the non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation benefits limit of $50,000.00.  Most rehabilitation services are not covered under OHIP.

If an individual’s injuries are deemed “catastrophic” their accident limits change as follows:

  • Medical and Rehabilitation benefits increase from $50,000.00 over 10 years to $1,000,000.00 over a lifetime
  • Attendant Care benefits increase from $36,000.00 over two years (to a maximum of $3,000.00 per month) to $1,000,000.00 over a lifetime (to a maximum of $6,000.00 per month)
  • The right to the services of a case manager to help coordinate their medical and rehabilitation needs
  • Housekeeping and Home Maintenance benefits (available for non-catastrophically injured victims, but only if optional benefits were purchased under their insurance policy)

The advertisement will run in major newspapers across Ontario over the course of this week and the next.

Please click on the link below to see the advertisement.

Catastrophic Injuries Media Campaign Ad

These changes would be in addition to the massive cutbacks to accident benefits implemented in September 2010.  Auto insurers are currently reporting significant profit margins.

We encourage all concerned individuals to contact their local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) immediately to express their concerns with these proposed changes.

Page 2 of 212