If you have been seriously and permanently injured in an automobile accident, you are entitled to damages for your pain and suffering. If your case goes to trial, the members of the jury are usually not told about two important things which can have a significant impact on whether you receive fair and just compensation. First, they are usually not told that there is a deductible which reduces the award of damages. Second, they are not told that the person who caused your injuries probably has insurance which pays for his or her lawyer as well as any judgment for damages.
Author Archives: Admin4
Ombudsman: Why are reports being left on a shelf?
The Office of the Ontario Ombudsman has always been concerned with the plight of the vulnerable and those in great need. In the 10 or so years that I was ombudsman, there were no fewer than 37 published systemic reports that had far-reaching and positive impacts for those most in need. Systemic investigations are those that identify root causes of problems.
Ontario moves to bolster oversight of 1,200 medical clinics
Health Minister Eric Hoskins plans to introduce legislation to improve accountability, safety and quality at non-hospital clinics.
Health Minister Eric Hoskins said Thursday he plans to implement 12 recommendations to bolster accountability, regulation, quality and safety in the increasing number of non-hospital medical clinics in Ontario.
Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight in Ontario’s Non-Hospital Medical Clinics
Every day in Ontario, thousands of patients receive procedures, tests and assessments in nonhospital medical clinics. “Non-hospital medical clinics” is a broad term that captures a wide array of settings independent of hospitals, where patients undergo procedures, testing and clinical assessments. Non-hospital medical clinics encompass family physician offices, specialists’ clinics that provide specialized services, some of which may be invasive, and facilities that provide day surgery. These facilities deliver ambulatory or out-patient care, meaning that an over-night hospital stay is not required. This is one of the largest volume patient activities in Canadian health care.1 The growing volume of services delivered outside of hospitals has been driven by a number of factors, including innovations in technology and care delivery models. The movement of low risk procedures from hospital to the community was expressed as a goal in the Action Plan for Health Care, 2 and providing coordinated and integrated care in the community closer to home was emphasized as a goal in the recently released Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care. 3
Changes to auto insurance policies will shrink coverage
Beginning June 1, rates will go down along with the standard benefits for medical, rehabilitation and attendant care.
David MacDonald, a personal injury lawyer with Thomson Rogers, and Michael Brattman, the chairman of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, both stress the importance of paying for added premiums.
MacDonald, who was appointed by the Minister of Finance in 2003 as the sole consumer representative to the Superintendent of Insurance’s auto insurance committee, has seen the Ontario government make several changes to basic auto policies.
WSIB handling of medical advice criticized at rally
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board isn’t following doctors’ orders when it comes to employees with disabilities, says the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group.
“One will be the request for a public inquiry is as strong as ever. I also learned that they had an opportunity to . . . meet with the president and CEO of the WSIB last week to discuss a number of issues. I want to be able to follow up with that meeting. They are going to send me a followup letter to communicate what parts of the meeting they were pleased with and parts of the meeting they felt wasn’t the response they were hoping for.”
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/local/wsib-handling-of-medical-advice-criticized-at-rally/article_6227db50-1340-11e6-9088-d3ea13f330cf.html
Learnings From the Demographic Data on Litigants Without Counsel
The demographic information on litigants without counsel available to date reveals a number of interesting patterns: most litigants appear to be 40 years old and older, and people in that age range are involved in litigation at rates far higher than those in younger age groups; although most litigants have lower incomes, a significant number have incomes around or exceeding the average income; and, litigants’ often high incomes match their educational achievements, which often exceed the average.
OBIA
Did you know: 40% of #braininjury respondents sustained their injury from an auto collision. Read more: http://bit.ly/1RJG9zu
Ontario Court of Appeal provides Clarification on Assessments Performed by Professionals who are not “health practitioners”
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Ziebenhaus v. Bahlieda, 2015 ONCA 471, recently provided clarification on a contentious issue in personal injury litigation. The plaintiff sustained a brain injury in a skiing accident while on a school trip to Mount St. Louis Moonstone Ski Resort. An action was commenced with the plaintiff seeking damages for future loss of income and future loss of competitive advantage, as well as other heads of damage.
Corbett v Odorico, 2016 ONSC 2961 (CanLII)
[19] In the present case, the defendants did not make any offer that could be characterized as a“near miss”. They made an offer, which if accepted, would have paid the plaintiff $7. This presented the plaintiff with the proposition that, on the eve of trial, she should walk away from her case with no compensation, or proceed through trial. In my view, to impose a rule arbitrarily limiting the amount of costs to some proportion of the recovery when there has been no offer of settlement, or only a nominal offer as in this case, would undermine the purpose of Rule 49, which is to encourage settlement by attaching costs consequences for failure to make or accept reasonable offers. It would also encourage the type of “hard ball” approach to settlement employed in this case.
[25] I respectfully agree with the observations of the judges in these three cases. In the circumstances of the present case, it would be an injustice to the plaintiffs to deprive them of an otherwise appropriate and reasonable award of costs due to a modest recovery at trial, in the face of a $7.00 settlement offer from the defendant.
Disposition
[26] In summary, in considering the defendant’s position on settlement, the relevant factors under Rules 49.13 and 57, including the offers made, the results of the trial and considerations of proportionality, I award the plaintiffs their costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis as follows: fees in the sum of $159,249, HST in the sum of $20,702.48 and disbursements in the sum of $89,347, payable by the defendant within 30 days hereof.