“These amendments will provide better benefits for people who are injured, address inconsistencies and close gaps in coverage, and keep coverage affordable,” McMorris said. “This will help improve the quality of life for people that have been seriously injured in a collision.”
http://www.ilstv.com/sask-
Finestone and his co-authors, including Dr. David Juurlink, head of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, argue that chronic pain has been “pharmaceuticalized” during the past two decades, and that family doctors have been led to believe, wrongly, that they should treat pain with drugs before employing other methods, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychology and exercise.
Last week, the people of Switzerland were called to the polls for another referendum. While the Swiss are known for deciding pretty much anything through referenda – from the renovation of highways to bans on minarets – this last week’s vote was quite extraordinary. The question asked was whether Switzerland should introduce a basic income of more than 2,000€ per month to every citizen. Unconditionally.
TORONTO – Ontario’s highest court has reaffirmed that it has a supervisory role in ensuring the fairness of lawyers’ fees.
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, largely rejecting claimed damages in a personal injury lawsuit due in part to concerns with the Plaintiff’s credibility and further due to Facebook photos entered as evidence at trial.
http://www.ilstv.com/
Adams, then a student at John Abbott’s police technology program, was out on her routine jog with a friend June 12, 2015 when she was hit by a car, driven by an alleged drunk driver.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
[52] Dr. Erin Boynton is an orthopedic surgeon who testified on behalf of the defence. She was of the opinion that Ms. Arteaga’s injuries were minor. She testified that Ms. Arteaga’s neck and shoulder pain complaints would be potentially reversible with the appropriate gentle exercise to improve her posture and core muscle strength. She testified that there was no evidence of impairment of a significant orthopedic function that had been continuous since the date of loss. She attributed Ms. Arteaga’s current pain complaints to abnormal posture and deconditioning, which were potentially reversible with exercise. It was Dr. Boynton’s opinion while Ms. Arteaga had pain in her neck and left shoulder, this had nothing to do with the motor vehicle accident, but was related to the way that Ms. Arteaga carried her head. There were no problems with the way that Ms. Arteaga carried her head or with her posture or with her muscle conditioning before this motor vehicle accident. Nevertheless, Dr. Boynton was of the opinion that Ms. Arteaga’s pain was not caused as a result of trauma. She disagreed with the opinions of Dr. Alpert and Dr. Jacobs that Ms. Arteaga did suffer from an inflammation of her nerves and chronic pain. Dr. Boynton believed that Ms. Arteaga suffered muscular pain after the accident but this was temporary because there was no serious injury.
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4920
Dr. Tuff indicated that the medical brief provided to him was small. The documents of particular significance to him, and reviewed by him in the report, were the disability certificate (OCF-3), dated December 12, 2014, by Dr. Luela Louis referred to above and the treatment and assessment plan (OCF-18) of Dr. Keeling, dated February 25, 2015. The other documents listed in the appendix to the report were the two treatment plans prepared by Dr. Luela Louis, dated December 12, 2014.
The Personal Medical Profile, dated January 6, 2015, provided by the family doctor and forwarded to the Insurer as discussed above, appears not to have been forwarded to Dr. Tuff. It is in any event not referred to in his report.
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4902
Dr. Moddel
The Applicant takes much issue with the way Dr. Moddel’s Neurological Assessment findings were incorporated – or more accurately not incorporated – into the Insurer’s multidisciplinary assessment culminating into the Executive Summary, despite that Dr. Moddel was part of that multidisciplinary team. Dr. Moddel opines on page 5 of his report that the Applicant suffered a closed head injury, and that, “I find this woman has a significant dementia and is now quite incapacitated following a motor vehicle accident.” In answers to the specific referral questions, he is clear that the diagnosis is related to the accident, and according to my reading, appears to dispute that the Applicant’s condition – e.g. her cognitive decline – is an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The Applicant focuses, in particular, on Dr. Moddel’s finding that:
From a neurological point of view, Ms. Danzig suffered a severe cognitive impairment secondary to the motor vehicle accident. Please refer to the executive summary for the whole person impairment rating. (Emphasis added)
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4899
Dr. Derry testified that Mrs. Galloway’s assessment lasted one hour, and that during this hour, a series of five tests was administered in another room. He personally would have spent about half an hour with her. His own notes were typed directly into his computer. When shown a report of Ms. Delise Roberts, in which the summary was identical to the words in his own report, he stated, “I read the documents that were of particular relevance. They are not my words, they are hers.” Also on cross-examination, it became apparent that Dr. Derry had not seen many of the documents of Mrs. Galloway’s file. His own report listed 72 documents, while Dr. Waisman’s report listed 364 reviewed documents. He did not have Dr. Morrison’s notes, although he did speak with her. In that conversation, they did not discuss the details of Mrs. Galloway’s therapy – “I asked her about the focus of treatment and she told me, talk about pain and how she is coping. I didn’t ask for details; it was important to know she is getting the treatment to address [her problems].” The tests administered at this assessment did not address PTSD.