Implementation of internal firewalls between accident benefits and bodily injury departments has been a struggle for automobile insurers since the publication of the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Bulletin 184, called “Internal Transfer of Information from Accident Benefits Adjuster to Tort Adjuster”[1]. The type of information that a firewall protects and the direction in which it blocks the flow of information is not always clear. Caution and privacy concerns have at times hindered vital communications between different departments of an insurance company, particularly when dealing with positive results of fraud investigations.
Author Archives: Admin4
Diagnosis Denied: “Systemic Disregard” for Medical Assessments of Injured Workers
In November 2015, the Ontario Federation of Labour (“OFL”) and the Ontario Network of Injured Workers’ Groups released Prescription Over-Ruled, a report criticising how the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) evaluates medical evidence when it processes claims. The OFL is Canada’s largest provincial labour federation and represents roughly one million workers. Their report alleges that the WSIB ignores medical evidence and opinions when it is inconsistent with the Board’s desired outcome – typically to deny the claim.
http://otlablog.com/diagnosis-
The Perilous Aftermath of a Simple Concussion
“In the aftermath of a crash there is tremendous agony. But the broken ribs and leg will heal,” Dr. Redelmeier told me. “I’m not as sanguine about a concussion. Even when the CT scan doesn’t show major trauma, a minor injury can damage thousands and thousands of neurons. There are all sorts of problems that can last a long time, and we don’t know how to treat them.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/
Basandra v. Sforza, 2016 ONCA 251 (CanLII)
[1] This action arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The jury questions, as negotiated between trial counsel and accepted by the trial judge, did not oblige the jury to structure its award of damages in a manner that reflected the requirements of s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. That section requires the trial judge to reduce jury damages awards for pecuniary losses by the amount of collateral benefits paid to the injured plaintiff. The defendant had the onus of proof regarding both the entitlement to these reductions and their amounts. The appellant submits the trial judge erred by reducing the jury’s awards for past and future attendant care, medical/rehabilitation, and housekeeping costs from $105,000 to nil, in the absence of clear evidence on the appropriate quantum of any reduction[1].
$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Neck and Back Soft Tissue Injuries
In today’s case (Niijar v. Hill) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions, the first in 2010 the second in 2012. The Defendants admitted fault for both. As a result she suffered from chronic neck and back soft tissue injuries which lingered to the time of trial and were expected to continue into the future. The Court assessed non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 but reduced this number by 15% finding the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by following some of her physicians advice.
http://www.ilstv.com/90000-
The Most Affordable Car Insurance Not Always the Answer
Ontario is home to the most expensive auto insurance premiums in Canada, but getting the best deal possible does not always mean taking the most affordable coverage. The average price of auto coverage in the country’s most populated province sits at over $1,500, and while the government is working to reduce premiums, the cost to insure a car in Ontario is prohibitive.
Ontario to pass legislation to give first responders WSIB coverage for PTSD
TORONTO — Dozens of police, firefighters and paramedics are at the Ontario legislature today to watch passage of a bill that will recognize post traumatic stress disorder as work-related illness for their professions.
Wynne vows to hasten campaign finance reforms
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is promising legislation this spring to outlaw corporate and union political donations as she scrambles to contain a furor over her party’s cash-for-access fundraisers.
How genetic testing can be used against you – and how Bill S-201 could change that
When Brittnee Sheridan turned 18, she was legally allowed to undergo genetic testing for BRCA1, a gene that increases risk of breast and ovarian cancers. She did, immediately – even though her grandmother was against it. “We got into an argument because she didn’t want me to get a test,” says Sheridan, who lives in Sudbury. “She said I was ruining my life, potentially.”