The government ought to be looking at the insurance industry practices of deflating claims and wrongful denial of claims for rehabilitation with the use of bogus medical reports for what it is – defrauding consumers out of the coverage they paid for.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/08/20130824-071306.html
The insurance industry representing more than 100 companies quickly responded that it can’t be done in two years without further cuts to benefits, including payouts for catastrophic injuries.
What part of the costs of those who are catastrophically injured is unnecessary? Who is it that Mr. Palumbo feels needs it more – those less injured? Or is it just better to give our money to insurers and expect no coverage at all? That’s already happening to half of Ontario’s accident victims
The Hon. J. Douglas Cunningham has been appointed to lead a review of Ontario’s auto insurance dispute resolution system and make recommendations on transforming the current system.
Another demonstration of the overuse of Ontario’s court system?
” We want to know if Ontario’s insurers are simply taking advantage of Canada’s poor access to justice record and deliberately clogging up our court systems in order to make higher profits…”
http://www.lucknowsentinel.com/2013/08/20/town-hall-discussion-about-auto-insurance-in-goderich
But doesn’t anonymizing the names of the censured health professionals undermine the objective of the Ontario health regulatory system – protecting the public?
Make no mistake, ads for legal firms are not intended as public service announcements
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/16/how-not-to-find-a-lawyer
“We need to make visible the pain caused by inadequate access and the huge discrepancies between the promise of justice and the lived reality of barriers and impediments,” says Melina Buckley
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/1630/a2j-requires-dramatic-changes-cba-report.html
PFR v BU, 2013 CanLII 46994 (ON HPARB) — 2013-07-25
The Committee’s Investigation and Decision
11. The Committee investigated the complaint.
12. The Committee determined that, on a technical level, it was satisfied that the Applicant`s assessment of the Respondent, his clinical findings and opinion, and his ensuing report (which fully set out the information he based his opinion on) were reasonable and in keeping with the expectations set out in the College’s policy on Third Party Reports. The Committee accepted that the Applicant’s reference to the Respondent’s weight as 225 pounds was an inadvertent error, which he has acknowledged.
13. The Committee noted, however, that it had previously received other complaints from patients regarding the Applicant’s unprofessional communication, many in the IME context. In addition, it noted two concurrent complaints about communications concerns before it at the same time as this complaint. It stated that this information had served to heighten the Committee’s concern in this case.
14. It concluded that it was very troubled by the Applicant’s communication and what appeared to be a sustained pattern of issues related to unprofessional behaviour. Therefore, the Committee decided to caution the Applicant and to require the Applicant to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program, as set out in paragraph two above.
…………………………
The requirement to consider prior decisions is couched in mandatory terms under section 26(2) of the Code.
Prior decisions
(2) A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee shall, when investigating a complaint or considering a report currently before it, consider all of its available prior decisions involving the member, including decisions made when that committee was known as the Complaints Committee, and all available prior decisions involving the member of the Discipline Committee, the Fitness to Practise Committee and the Executive Committee, unless the decision was to take no further action under subsection (5). [Emphasis added]
23. The Committee has not complied with this legislative provision as it has considered only summaries of the matters detailed in the “CPSO Physician Profile” rather than the entire decisions.
24. Further, the Committee has not complied with the section 25 (6) (c) which provides as follows:
Notice to member
(6) The Registrar shall give the member, within 14 days of receipt of the complaint or the report,
(a) notice of the complaint, together with a copy of the provisions of sections 28 to 29, or notice of the receipt of the report;
(b) a copy of the provisions of section 25.2; and
(c) a copy of all available prior decisions involving the member unless the decision was to take no further action under subsection 26 (5).
25. The Committee did not comply with section 25 (6) (c) because it provided the Applicant with the summary of the matters contained in the “CPSO Physician Profile” but did not provide the Applicant with the actual available prior decisions.
26. The Board finds the Committee’s investigation to be inadequate as a result of its failure to comply with section 25(6) (c) and 26(2) of the Code.
27. The Board, therefore, returns this matter to the Committee and requires it comply with sections 25(6) (c) and 26 (2).
______________________________________________
20.The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 5th at the Sunset Golf Course in Goderich