Posts Tagged ‘personal injury’
Smitiuch Injury Law is very pleased to announce that Mr. Luke Hamer has joined the firm as an Associate Lawyer. After articling with the firm for 10 months, Luke was Called to the Bar on January 25, 2013. He obtained his Juris Doctor law degree (J.D.) from Bond University in Queensland, Australia.
Prior to attending law school Luke studied at the University of Toronto where he graduated with an Honours Bachelor of Science, majoring in Anthropology and English.
Luke will be serving clients in the Toronto, Brantford and surrounding communities. His addition to the firm enhances Smitiuch Injury Law’s commitment to providing excellent customer service.
You can contact Luke Hamer at [email protected], or call 416-621-1551, extension 211.
The Ontario Government has made public the regulatory changes that will be made to help combat automobile insurance fraud in the province. All changes are scheduled to come into effect on June 1, 2013.
The following changes will be in effect for the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS):
- The insurer is bound to pay only to the maximum rates established under the Guidelines for all medical and rehabilitation benefits, except for transportation.
- The insurer is allowed to have an additional Examination Under Oath of an claimant for the purpose of determining the priority of accident benefits insurers.
- An insurer will be required to give all reasons, not just a medical reason, for denying a medical or rehabilitation benefit.
- The insurer can demand:
- Confirmation in writing that the goods or services were provided to the insured person, and/or
- A statutory declaration as to the circumstances that gave rise to the invoice.
- This information must be provided within 10 business days after receiving the request; and
- An invoice is not overdue and no interest accrues on it during any period during with the insured person has not provided the information within the above timeframe.
- While the insurer is still obligated to provide regular statements to the insured as to what has been paid out on a claim, they may be required to provide additional information if the Superintendent approves a benefit statement form.
The following changes will be in effect for the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices statute:
- It will be a deceptive act or practice for anyone other than a lawyer or paralegal to require, request or permit a person to sign a blank OCF form.
The legal reference for these changes are O.Reg 14/13, O.Reg 15/13, O.Reg 16/13.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a decision from the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario that declared a mediation by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) failed if it has not been mediated within 60 days of the application being submitted.
In Cornie v. Security National [2012 ONSC 905], which was heard with three other similar cases, Justice J.W. Sloan found the insurance companies’ postion that accident victims must simply wait to be ”preposterous” and suggests that FSCO can continue to try to comply with the 60 day period or seek a change and/or ask for some legislative direction to extend the 60 day period in appropriate circumstances. This decision was posted in our blog on February 9, 2012.
This ruling means that, when an accident benefits insurer has denied a benefit, the insured can apply for mediation at FSCO and, 60 days after the mediation has been filed, the insured can then move on to either arbitration or a lawsuit against the insurer if the mediation has not been conducted within that timeframe.
The Court of Appeal concluded their decision by stating the following:
 The legislative scheme for resolving disputes about statutory accident benefits requires that insured persons resort to a mandatory mediation process before commencing a court proceeding or submitting their disputes to arbitration. The Act, the regulations and the DRPC make it clear that this process is intended to be completed within 60 days from the filing of an application for mediation with FSCO, unless the parties agree to an extension of time. The scheme postpones the right of insured persons to commence civil actions against their insurer in order to allow the mediation process to be completed within the time prescribed, but leaves them free to commence actions once that period has expired.
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released a new Assessment and Treatment Plan (OCF-18) form, a new Treatment Confirmation Form (OCF-23) and a new Auto Insurance Standard Invoice (OCF-21) for use effective November 1, 2012. Older versions of these forms will not be allowed as of that date.
You can download these new forms directly from our website by clicking on the links below:
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
Disclosure Newsletter – Summer 2012 issue
Facebook Poll Winner
Chantalle Barkovich, Registered Massage Therapist, Kneaded Care Inc., Brantford
is the winner of a $150 Keg Steakhouse Gift Certificate.
Congratulations Chantalle, thanks for voting!
An arbitrator at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has ruled that a person providing attendant care for an insured is not required to provide their academic records to the accident benefits insurer.
In Mary Anthonipillai and Security National Insurance Co./Monnex Insurance Mgmt. Inc. [FSCO A11-001168] the daughter of the claimant, Mary Athonipillai, was providing housekeeping and attendant care services for her mother while she was attending university. The insurer, Security National, requested a copy of the daughter’s academic records because it took the position that the amount of attendant care and housekeeping services provided seemed excessive if the daughter was attending school at the same time. It was unknown if she was a part-time or full-time student and the daughter ignored all requests from the insurer for this information. Security National believed that the lack of this information was prohibitive to any meaningful settlement discussions.
Arbitrator Jessica Kowalski stated,
I am not persuaded that the records are so relevant that their non-disclosure now would prejudice a just and fair hearing so that I should therefore set aside privacy concerns around documents that contain information personal to a third party but none about a party to this proceeding.
Nor am I persuaded that the academic schedule is as probative as Security National asserts. That schedule will not disclose how often, or even whether, Ms. George attended her classes.
For these reasons, the motion is dismissed.
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.
The Ontario Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force Steering committee is seeking public input on a number of potential recommendations prior to their final report in the fall of 2012.
These recommendations include:
- Regulation of health clinics
- Regulation of the towing industry
- Enhanced authority for FSCO to regulate the business practices of health care treatment and assessment facilities
- Tightened controls on the delivery of Accident Benefits, including requiring the patient’s signature on invoices before they are submitted, a second Examination under Oath, and billing claimants $500 if the claimant fails to attend an insurer’s examination. Also being considered is requiring insurers to provide itemized statements to claimants every 60 days
- Amending the consent provisions of the auto insurance applications to provide greater certainty about the ability to share information for the purpose of detecting and preventing fraud.
- Provide insurers with broader civil immunity to protect them from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behaviour to regulators and the police
- A website devoted to informing those injured in motor vehicle accidents about accident benefits and how to detect and report suspicious or inappropriate behaviour
- Mandatory disclosure by insurance companies to the public about how they select and supervise their preferred providers of services – including independent medical examinations
- For FSCO to hire appropriate staff and resources to carry-out these recommendations
The entire update can be read by clicking here.
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling confirmed that it is possible for someone injured in a motor vehicle accident to work but still be entitled to a Non-Earner Benefit.
In the decision, Galdamez v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada [2012 ONCA 508], Hayfa Galdamez returned to work shortly after her accident. Because of this, Allstate took the position that she was not entitled to income replacement benefits. However, even though she was able to work, her medical professionals were of the opinion that she met the test for a non-earner benefit; namely, that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
It has been well established in case law that entitlement to a non-earner benefit goes beyond the ability to simply go through the motions of everyday life.
The Court stated the following:
 Although I consider it unlikely that persons who can work at their pre-accident jobs following an accident will often meet the disability standard for non-earner benefits, I do not rule out such a possibility.
 For example, in jobs where mobility is not a requirement (e.g. department store greeter, telemarketer, etc.) and the job was not of great importance in the claimant’s pre-accident life, it may be possible for a claimant who returns to his or her pre-accident employment following an accident to satisfy the test for non-earner benefits.
This decision can be read in its entirety by clicking here.