Catastrophic Impairment

Dr. Harold Becker, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto has written an opinion paper regarding the “redefinition” of Catastrophic Impairment, which is going to be discussed at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) Roundtable this Friday. Read Dr. Becker’s paper here.

MORE >>

Seriously injured accident benefit claimants in Ontario no longer are required to dispute a “catastrophic impairment” denial within two years from the date of the denial, according to a recent arbitration decision, Toronto plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer Darcy Merkur writes in Lawyers Weekly.  Read Lawyers Weekly “Because qualifying as having suffered a ‘catastrophic impairment’ allows an Ontario motor vehicle accident claimant to essentially...

MORE >>

Just as a common understanding of the term “catastrophic impairment” has been reached, its definition is being completely reworked with an aim for a more accurate and objective system, Toronto plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer Darcy Merkur recently discussed at the Back to School with Thomson Rogers and Spinal Cord Injury Ontario Conference. “Changes to the definition of the term catastrophic impairment are coming,” Merkur, partner with Thomson Rogers,...

MORE >>

Personal injury lawyers and health care workers across the province are protesting recently announced recommendations to change the definition of catastrophic injury for accident victims. Richard Halpern and Roger Oatley quit the Ontario Auto Insurance Committee Advisory Board that was created by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). The recommended changes in no-way help victims of accidents. It’s simply a guise to allow insurance companies to make more money. Click here for more...

MORE >>

There are well established legal principles that guide the assessment and award of future care claims.  These principles, described in an evolving body of case law, assist the court in its determination of future care awards.  Counsel who advance claims for future care on behalf of their clients and counsel who oppose these claims, should be aware of the cases that have established the basis for future care claims and of the cases that provide instruction about how to assess and prove...

MORE >>

It would be "unfair" to deny persons with combined physical and psychiatric impairments the enhanced benefits available to persons with similarly extensive impairments that are exclusively physical or exclusively psychiatric, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decisive decision that clarifies the law on how to properly calculate "whole person impairment" (WPI) ratings when evaluating "catastrophic impairments" under the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits...

MORE >>

In a unanimous decision released on December 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided welcome relief to motor vehicle accident victims by ruling that both physical and psychological impairments can be combined when assessing the definition of "catastrophic impairment" as it relates to "impairment of the whole person" under section 2(1.1)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision in, Kusnierz v. Economical,...

MORE >>

The criteria required to meet the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment remains unsettled.  The Court of Appeal is set to hear the appeals in Pastore v. Aviva and in Kusnierz v. The Economical Mutual (rejecting the combination of physical and psychological impairments to achieve 55% WPI) later this year.  On October 23, 2011, FSCO released its first decision with respect to meeting the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment under then section 21(2)(g) of the SABS...

MORE >>

The Health Professional Magazine has posted a summary and photos of the Thomson, Rogers and Toronto ABI Network conference: Catastrophic Brain Impairment: Children, Young Adults and their Families (Rehabilitation Strategies), which was held on September 8th, 2011 at the Four Seasons Hotel in Toronto. View the article here.

MORE >>

From a legal perspective, the most fundamental problem with the CAT Expert Report appears to be a misconception by some of the Panel members about the impact of a CAT designation.  A declaration of CAT does not mean automatic entitlement to benefits!  The SABS process, whether CAT or non-CAT, is a needs based system, wherein accident victims are eligible to make claims for reasonable and necessary expenses, up to certain limits. This fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of...

MORE >>