Although traumatically brain injured children can sometimes make a remarkable recovery initially, they often go on to develop significant problems as their brain matures through adolescence and into young adulthood. These children may require costly treatment or rehabilitation services that are aimed at preventing or mitigating anticipated future problems as opposed to their current needs. What happens when an insurance company denies much needed benefits to such children on the basis that they do not require the proposed treatment now? How can insurers be deterred from this type of conduct?The case of six-year-old Christopher, which I wrote about in an earlier issue of the Accident Benefits Reporter (see: Thomson, Rogers, Accident Benefit Reporter Updater, Issue 11: Hoang v. Personal Insurance Company: An Insurer Must Remain Open to ...
Also in this Issue
- LITIGATING OUT-OF-ONTARIO ACCIDENT CLAIMS
- ACCIDENT VICTIMS SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT DISCUSSING YOUR LEGAL ADVICE
- Darcy R. Merkur*
- UPDATE: HENRY V. GORE MUTUAL INSURANCE
- Stacey L. Stevens
- Private: Esther J. Roche
On December 6, 2017, Adjudicator Go confirmed that an insured is entitled to be paid attendant care benefit regardless of whether the ... Continue
To receive Thomson, Rogers’ newsletter the Accident Benefit Reporter, and information on upcoming conferences and events, please provide us with your name and email below. You can unsubscribe at any time.