The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (www.fsco.gov.on.ca) has now commenced a review of the “Catastrophic Definition”. The outcome of this review will have a dramatic impact on the victims who suffer severe disabilities in car crashes. For those deemed to be “catastrophic”, it can mean the ability to access essential services to live independently and with dignity. For those that are not, it can mean a life of limited help, despair and a stalled recovery. The stakes are very high!
The FSCO has now appointed an Expert Medical Panel to make recommendations regarding the definition and the assessment process. Careful attention will be made on people suffering traumatic brain injuries, paralysis, spinal cord injuries, severe mental and psychological disorders, and those suffering from multiple broken bones.
Many lawyers, doctors, rehabilitation professionals and treating providers are looking forward to the review. It is hoped that it will finally address the many holes that are within the system. Holes that have resulted in many seriously disabled victims being left out in the cold when it comes to basic care services and rehabilitation treatment. Treatment that will help them get better and integrated back into society and the workforce.
The last changes made by the Ontario Government to the insurance system was in September of 2010. These changes saw a drastic reduction in benefits to those suffering less severe injuries. The intent was to eliminate and drastically reduce benefits flowing to people suffering minor injuries. By cutting the flow, it would mean insurance companies would not have to raise auto insurance premiums to the driving public. It was also seen as a way of making sure greater benefits could flow to the more seriously disabled victims. As some would say, soft tissue injuries would have to take a back seat to the seriously injured.
Although the review process is to look at ways of making the present system better and more efficient, some fear that it will be used as a vehicle by the insurance industry to make it harder for people to be deemed “catastrophic”. This of course would mean people who otherwise would have up to two million in benefits available to meet their needs, would be reduced down to a bare bones package that is exhausted normally with one to two years. This of course cannot be the intent of the review. The review ought to ensure greater access is given to the seriously injured. Substantial savings have already been afforded to the insurance industry as cited in my previous blogs. To now go after the seriously injured and seek to reduce their benefits is just wrong.
Many are confident that the medical panel, FSCO and the Ministry will ensure these seriously injured persons are protected. An expansive approach with the definition must be done. A definition that recognizes all serious injuries. A definition that takes into consideration the collective impact of all injuries on the disabled. It should never be forgotten that there are no windfalls that happen when one is deemed “catastrophic.” Even if someone is found to suffer a catastrophic injury, they still must prove the need for benefits. It simply does not mean money falls on to their lap and they keep it. The money goes to rehabilitation, home modifications, mobility aids, and attendant care. The disabled person still must prove they need the services ( the wheelchair ramp, the wheel chair lift, the helper to get dressed etc.). If they don’t prove it, they don’t get it. If the definition is expanded, it simply means those who need it can access it beyond the temporal and monetary caps of $3,500 or $50,000 as set out in my previous blogs.
If the panel or FSCO or the Ministry seek to tighten up the definition, which would be contrary to the intent of the review, then many severely disabled individuals will be shut out from accessing the rehabilitation and medical help needed to live with dignity and independence. Of course further restriction would simply mean greater savings to the insurance industry. This time however, it will be on the backs of the severely disabled.
After September 1, 2010, car insurance companies and brokers across Ontario will be presenting consumers with new choices for their auto insurance renewals. A daunting process is ahead. The insurance system in Ontario is one of the most complicated systems in North America.
Even though car insurance is a major budgetary item for many families, many consumers are unfamiliar with the coverage they actually have. After September 1, consumers will be given a number of choices as to amount of benefits they wish to purchase. By giving such a choice, the intent was to give them a break on premiums being paid.
The new basic auto policy being sold contains far less benefits than what existed before September 1. With benefits being drastically reduced, one would of course expect to see some significant reductions in how much one has to pay in premiums.
Therefore it is absolutely critical that each consumer ask their insurance company and brokers what are they buying and at what price. Like shopping in a supermarket, each item ought to have a price tag. Read more of this article »
When an insurance company denies accident benefits to an insured person, the insurer must advise the insured person of his or her right to dispute the denial and of the most important points in the process. A recent court decision has confirmed that if an insurer falls short of this requirement, it will not be able to rely on the limitation period that begins with that denial.
In Yifru v. Certas Direct Insurance Company, Certas Insurance denied Ms. Yifru’s claim for non-earner benefits on June 23, 2003. Certas advised Ms. Yifru that she could dispute the decision by applying for mediation within two years of the denial. However, it did not advise her that she had any further options if she and Certas failed to settle her claim at mediation.
Read more of this article »
[This is the fifth of a five part series by Patrick Brown on upcoming changes to auto insurance]
Injured accident victims will have a significant amount of their benefits reduced due to assessment costs. Despite the dramatic slashing of benefits reported in my previous blogs, consumers will also face further reductions based on the fact that the cost of assessments will come out of the amount of benefits available.
For example, if a consumer is injured in a car accident and the injuries are not considered to be catastrophic, they presently have $100,000 in benefits for medical and rehabilitation treatment. Any assessment costs to obtain the benefit are over and above the $100,000.
Under the new standard policy without buy ups, the consumer will only have $50,000 available in benefit dollars. That $50,000 includes assessments costs. Therefore, if $5,000 is paid for an assessment to obtain the benefit, then the amount available to the injured person is reduced down to $45,000. Read more of this article »
Patrick Brown has made a series of posts recently discussing the changes to auto insurance in Ontario. In today’s Toronto Star, James Daw provides a useful illustration of what a lower premium may cost you in the long run, in terms of reduced benefits and coverage.
The table below is taken from Mr. Daw’s article:
[This is the fourth part of a series by Patrick Brown on upcoming changes to Ontario’s Auto Insurance Laws]
Starting September 1, 2010, many family members who provide basic care needs to their injured family members will be cut out from receiving any compensation for these essential services. The new law eliminates any benefits going to a family member who help the disabled family member unless they show they suffered an “economic loss” because of it.
This will have a devastating impact on families who chose to have family members look after their severely injured loved ones. The new law was passed at the request of the insurance industry. It will force families to use outside agencies. Right now for instances, if a family member is hit by a car and suffers serious injury to the extent they can no longer dress, bathe or feed themselves, a benefit is available up to either 3,000 or 6,000 per month so that other families members can help. Under the new system, this funding will stop unless mom, dad or sibling can show they lost money somehow [i.e. they have to quit work or miss work without pay]. The only way to access the benefit is to have a third party care agency come in and provide the services. Read more of this article »
This is the first of a series where Patrick Brown discusses the upcoming changes to auto insurance.
Starting this September, if you are injured in a car accident, the benefits available to assist you in getting better will be drastically reduced.
The insurance industry has set it self up, once again, for record profits. Following intensive lobbying by the insurance industry, the Ministry of Finance released the new Regulations for Auto Insurance on www.e-laws.gov.on.ca. These regulations are now law. As of September 1, 2010, all persons who are injured in an incident involving a car (this includes cyclists and pedestrians) will face reduced benefits when hurt.
Dollars used to care for the injured victims will be deflected away from the insurance industry to the public health system. The last time the government gave a break to the auto insurance industry was in 2003 when they reduced compensation to be paid out to victims of accidents. Back in 2003 the industry was crying poor and pressing the panic button on rising health care costs and increased premiums. After the 2003 changes were made profits soared. In 2004, Canada’s property and casualty insurance industry made $4.7 billion. It went on to make $4.6 billion in 2005 and about $5.8 billion in 2006. Read more of this article »
Under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), a person injured in a car accident in Ontario is entitled to receive a weekly income replacement benefit for two years if he or she is unable to perform his or her own occupation.after two years, the injured person is only entitled to receive an ongoing income replacement benefit if the injured person is completely unable “to engage in any employment for which he or she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.”
In the recent decision of Burtch v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to articulate the proper test for income replacement benefits more than two years after an accident. Specifically, it was asked to consider whether an injured person is considered able to engage in employment if there is job that the injured person is not currently qualified for but is capable of qualifying for.
The Court of Appeal held that it is not necessary for the injured person to the formally qualified and able to begin work immediately for alternative employment to be considered a reasonably suitable alternative. A job for which the injured person is not already qualified may be a suitable alternative so long as “substantial” upgrading or retraining is not required.
Read more of this article »
“When is an expert not treated as an expert?” That was the question Ontario Superior Court judge Thomas Lederer asked in the case of Babakar v. Brown .
The Babakars were involved in a motor vehicle collision and were insured by State Farm. They applied to State Farm for accident benefits. At some point, State Farm required the Babakars to attend insurer examinations under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule with psychologist Dr. Hoath, orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Kadish, and physiotherapist Mr. Diaz. Based on the reports of Dr. Hoath, Dr. Kadish and Mr. Diaz, State Farm terminated the Babakars’ accident benefits.
at the examination for discovery of State Farm’s representative, the Babakars’ lawyer askedState Farm to make the following inquiries of Dr. Hoath, Dr. Kadish, and Mr. Diaz:
1. To ask Dr. Hoath whether pre-accident or other historical records were needed and if he ever made a request to State Farm for the records.
Read more of this article »
Lynda Anderson suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in 2001. She sued the at-fault driver and in March 2008, she settled her lawsuit.
In June 15, 2005, Ms. Anderson suffered additional injuries in a slip and fall. She started a second lawsuit against the owner and occupier of the property where she fell. At her examination for discovery in the slip and fall action, the defence lawyers asked that Ms. Anderson produce copies of the settlement documents from her 2001 MVA. Ms. Anderson refused to produce these documents. She agreed to produce her medical records and reports, but felt that the settlement documents were irrelevant. The defendants brought a motion to compel Ms. Anderson to produce the information.
Read more of this article »