FAIR took issue with a recommendation that experts “should be required to certify their duty to the tribunal and to provide fair, objective and non-partisan evidence,” that expert witnesses whose evidence is deemed biased should be disregarded and denied payment.
“That vendor, without any real sanctions, will simply move on, do it again, and hope not to be caught by the next arbitrator.”
DRS report too weak – FAIR – THOMPSON’S WORLD INSURANCE NEWS Feb 21 2014
“The medical opinion evidence in respect to Ontario’s vulnerable and often cognitively impaired accident victims should be of the utmost importance and of the highest quality to satisfy our courts who must decide whether or not an injured person is entitled to benefits,” FAIR stated Friday. “There is no more important evidence than that and it is central to the recent mediation backlog – too many legitimate claims indiscriminately turned down by insurers based on questionable medical reports.”
The recently released Dispute Resolution System Review final report does not address the abuse of Ontario’s accident victims and our courts by assessors who intentionally minimize or deflate an injury so Ontario’s insurers can deny claims. Despite the DRS review being the forum most suited to impose criteria regarding medico-legal expert witnesses, and the place to set standards, the issue will remain a core problem affecting every accident victim.
Tighter scheduling and timelines, both welcome changes, will not make the system fairer if the quality of the evidence at hearings remains so low. Media release FAIR response to the Dispute Resolution System Review Feb 21 2014
It is highly doubtful that people are suddenly getting “less injured” over the past few years. What is likely the case is that more and more people are getting pushed thoughtlessly into the MIG. This trend does not come as a surprise to anyone practising in this area.
http://otlablog.com/minor-injury-guideline-is-not-just-holding-up-it-appears-to-be-gaining-strength/
A review of the Ontario auto insurance dispute resolution system (DRS) carried out by Justice Douglas Cunningham recently provided the government with 28 recommendations which if implemented would remove the system from Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and create a new government administrative tribunal.
http://williehandler.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cunningham-report-recommends-new.html
The DRS review was part of the government’s overall plan to reduce auto insurance rates in the province.
A review of the Ontario auto insurance dispute resolution system (DRS) was first announced in the 2012 Ontario Budget. The 2013 Ontario Budget committed to the appointment of an expert to review the system and propose legislative amendments in the fall of 2013.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/autoinsurance/drs-final-report.html#framework
Getting Better and Better after Brain Injury A Practical Guide for Families and Caregivers
This conference is geared for CAREGIVERS of ABI Survivors, not to professionals working with ABI survivors. Families can choose to attend with their loved one, but the content of the day is geared towards caregivers.
For online registration visit website at www.abicollaborative.ca or http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=qkrld6lab&oeidk=a07e8u2rb878e18ee9d
Until the citizens of this province recognize that the behaviour of the insurance industry is not acceptable, nothing will change. It is not reasonable for us to be legislated to pay profit to a company while that company withholds its services when required. Anyone involved in a car accident will tell you their lives changed in the “blink of an eye.” Rather than waiting until there are enough people injured in motor vehicle accidents in Ontario to force a change to the system, the healthy citizens of Ontario must demand a change to the Automobile Insurance Act before their lives are changed forever — before they become like Ralph. http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4363491-life-can-change-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/
Although technically, an expert is told that he must serve the interests of justice by assisting the court in reaching the truth, and not blindly support the party that hired him, it cannot be denied that most of the time, an expert will be extensively coached on how to answer tough cross-examination questions and skillfully avoid statements that will hurt the party that hired him.
http://www.slaw.ca/2014/02/11/the-future-of-expert-shopping/