Seven years ago Dr. Norman Doidge introduced neuroplasticity to the world – the idea that our brains aren’t rigidly hardwired as was once believed, but that they can change, and can be rewired. Indeed, what is unique about the brain is that its circuits can, through mental experience and activity, form, unform, and reform in new ways.
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthin
In today’s case (Villing v. Husseni) the Plaintiff was injured in 2010 in a collision caused by the Defendant. She suffered a low back injury diagnosed as Lumbar Facet Syndrome. In finding nothing wrong with the trial judge’s $85,000 assessment of non-pecuniary damages the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:
[11] There is no issue that the respondent was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 20, 2004. She suffered significant physical injuries to both legs. Since the date of the accident, she has been unable to walk unaided and is now wheelchair-bound. Subsequent complications and surgeries that followed over the next several years resulted in the amputation of her lower right leg and left her with chronic pain.
[93] The appellant submits that the application judge’s order has the opposite effect: it “incentivizes” an insured person to delay his or her catastrophic application as long as possible in order to accrue tremendous amounts of interest in the interim. According to the appellant, this would also create difficulty for insurers in properly establishing reserves for claims files open beyond the 104 (or 260)-week period.
[94] These arguments were submitted to and rejected by the application judge. I also would not give effect to them.
[95] First and foremost, it defies common sense that a catastrophically impaired insured person would delay making an application that would open the door to desperately needed enhanced catastrophic benefits. I agree with the application judge’s observations in this regard:
A catastrophic injury is a serious one; catastrophically injured people require assistance to perform their activities of everyday living and to cover medical expenses. The nature of these expenses are such that they cannot be forgone by a victim or denied by an insurer, with the aim of accruing or avoiding costs.
[96] There is no question that the SABS requires an insured person to make the necessary applications and provide the required information to an insurer. However, these obligations must be understood in the context of a catastrophic impairment. The nature of many catastrophic impairments may necessarily render a catastrophically impaired insured person incapable of navigating and completing the complicated and detailed application process for a catastrophic impairment determination. As the application judge found, this is clearly what happened in the present case.
Until recently, cautions — such as those issued for drug-dispensing errors or delays in sending patients for crucial followup appointments — were kept secret from the public, including future patients critics say deserved to know the track record of each health professional.
Dr. Stephen James was found by a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to have treated a number of patients in unsterile conditions, some of whom later became seriously ill.
https://www.thestar.com/news/g
It would seem that David Cheifetz, a now retired defence lawyer, can be as insulting to auto insurance claimants via his incredibly ignorant statements to the Chair of FAIRAssociation.ca (not-for-profit motor vehicle accident victim group seeking insurance reform) as so many of the rogue IME assessors are to claimants they assess, whom they deny in order to keep their lucrative insurer-paid jobs.
The changes to Ontario’s auto insurance benefits are yet another blow to drivers and accident victims that will ultimately cost the system, says Toronto plaintiff personal injury lawyer Brian Goldfinger.
http://www.advocatedaily.com/b
In Intact Insurance Company v. Beaudry, Ontario Superior Court Justice Beaudoin held that absent a prescribed form, or a standard form that may be devloped by the various stakeholders, the insurer and insured must agree on the consent form for assessments by healthcare practitioners under s. 44 of the SABS before they can be conducted.