About Attendant Care:

November 1, 2008


By: Martha Binstock, B.Sc.P.T. CLCP, Rehabilitation Planning Inc.

After I developed the chart, entitled Assessing Attendant Care Using the Form 1, (which was published in Volume 8, Issue 2 of the Accident Benefit Reporter), I received several phone calls asking questions about the proper use and completion of the Form 1. It became increasingly clear that others were as frustrated as I about the lack of clear guidelines on how one is to correctly fill out the Form. There is tremendous difficulty finding comprehensive information regarding which Forms to use for which legislation. Trying to navigate the Financial Services Commission (FSCO) website can be challenging. While I am aware the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists (OSOT) has a working group looking at these issues, its guidelines and findings are not readily available to other professionals also involved in completing the Form 1. Hence, there is no open forum for multi-professional discourse on issues related to it.

Therefore, it is my intention to write a series of articles that will stimulate discussion and encourage people to write in with questions or share their opinions on how they deal with Form 1 issues. Thomson Rogers will provide input on what legal directions can be found from reviewing available case law and/or arbitration decisions.

PART 1: HISTORY OF THE FORM 1 /BILL 164.

For accidents, which occurred from January 1, 1994 to October 31, 1996, the Form 1 was first introduced to deal with attendant care calculations. The preamble on this form state, “Use this form to report the future needs for attendant care required by the client as a result of an automobile accident.”

Attendant care is subsequently divided into three levels:

Part 1: Level 1: Routine Personal Care

Part 2: Level 2: Basic Supervisory Functions

Part 3: Level 3: Complex Health/Care and Hygiene Functions

Part 4: Is the Calculation of Attendant Care Costs under each Level

Bill 164 legislated that the value for each attendant care level is to be indexed on a yearly basis. Therefore, since the inception of Bill 164, the indexed monthly rates have increased every year.

For those of you doing past attendant care assessments on Bill 164 cases (yes there are still many of them around) it is important to ensure that you are using the Bill 164 Form 1 correctly and calculating the benefit using the relevant indexed amounts for each Level of Care.

The chart below – (revised to meet the 2008 rates) is a handy reference guide outlining the yearly indexed amounts to be used in Part 4 calculations.

Calculations in Part 4
Monthly Maximums
Year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
$3,000.00
$6,000.00
$10,000.00
1994
$ 8.75
$6.85
$14.00
$3,000.00
$6,000.00
$10,000.00

1995

$ 8.77
$6.85
$14.03
$10,200.00
1996
$ 8.97
$6.85
$14.35
$3,075.14
$6,150.28
$10,250.46
1997
$ 9.10
$6.85
$14.57
$3,121.27
$6,242.53
$10,404.22
1998
$ 9.25
$6.85
$14.80
$3,171.21
$6,342.41
$10,570.69
1999
$ 9.31
$6.85
$14.80
$3,192.41
$6,386.81
$10,644.68
2000
$ 9.55
$6.85
$15.29
$3,276.44
$6,552.87
$10,921.44
2001
$ 9.81
$6.85
$15.70
$3,364.90
$6,729.80
$11,216.32
2002
$10.07
$6.85
$16.11
$3,452.39
$6,904.77
$11,507.94
2003
$10.30
$6.85
$16.48
$3,531.79
$7.063.58
$11,772.62
2004
$10.53
$7.15
$16.84
$3,609.49
$7,218.98
$12,031.62
2005
$10.72
$7.45
$17.14
$3,674.46
$7,348.92
$12,248.19
2006
$11.08
$7.75
$17.72
$3,799.39
$7,598.78
$12,664.63
2007
$11.16
$8.00
$17.84
$3,825.99
$7,651.97
$12,753.28
2008
$11.44
$8.75
$18.29
$3,921.64
$7,843.27
$13,072.11

Minimum Wage (Level 2 rate) increase from $8.00 to $8.75 began March 31, 2008
If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to make a comment that can be considered for further articles, please contact me at rehabplan@rogers.com.

Share this


Related articles:

Sloan H. Mandel, Alex Mladenovic, Deana S. Gilbert

Thomson Rogers Secures Important Victory in Denman v. Radovanovic Appeal: Court of Appeal Upholds $8.5 Million Informed Consent Verdict and $3 Million Cost Award

Read more
Mandatory Car Accident Benefits to be Reduced Once Again

Mandatory Car Accident Benefits To Be Reduced Once Again

Read more
Simplifying Motor Vehicle Litigation by Eliminating the “Threshold"

Simplifying Motor Vehicle Litigation by Eliminating the “Threshold”

Read more
Sloan H. Mandel, Alex Mladenovic, Deana S. Gilbert

Thomson Rogers Secures Important Victory in Denman v. Radovanovic Appeal: Court of Appeal Upholds $8.5 Million Informed Consent Verdict and $3 Million Cost Award

Read more
Mandatory Car Accident Benefits to be Reduced Once Again

Mandatory Car Accident Benefits To Be Reduced Once Again

Read more
Simplifying Motor Vehicle Litigation by Eliminating the “Threshold"

Simplifying Motor Vehicle Litigation by Eliminating the “Threshold”

Read more

Stay Informed

Subscribe to receive updates on the latest news from Thomson Rogers as well as invitations to seminars, webinars and more.

Sign up now