We have begun recommending that our clients consider purchasing legal cost protection from companies like BridgePoint Indemnity Co. We believe that this empowers our clients, and removes one of the obstacles to achieving fair compensation from the defendant insurance companies.
The central issue in the recent Reconsideration of 17-000835 v. Aviva General Insurance Canada (2018 CanLII 83520) was whether chronic pain should be considered a “minor injury” or “clinically associated sequelae” under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). While this issue should have been resolved already, Insurance companies continue to use the MIG as justification for denying payment of benefits to chronic pain claimants.
The Applicant, T.S. was injured in a collision on January 16, 2015 and sought treatment through his automobile insurer, Aviva. Based on the report of his initial injuries, his claim was processed under the MIG by Aviva, and was subject to a $3,500 cap on funding.
Read More about Accident Benefits Update: Chronic Pain Is Not a Minor Injury (Again!)
In a recent decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), 17-007471 v RBC General Insurance Company (2018 CanLII 83526), the applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a reversing car in a parking lot. He suffered whiplash and other injuries, including aggravation of pre-existing shoulder pain. RBC, his Accident Benefits insurer, determined that his initial injuries fell within the scope of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG). As a result, his medical benefits were subject to a cap of $3,500. Once the $3,500 was exhausted, the applicant sought additional treatment including ongoing Chiropractic care and a Psychological Assessment. RBC denied these treatment plans, claiming that no evidence had been provided that the applicant’s ongoing impairments exceeded the definition of a “minor injury” under the MIG (which include a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and any clinically associated sequelae). The parties were unable to resolve their dispute which led to a hearing in writing.
Many of you do not know that our legal system is prejudiced against plaintiffs who are injured in car accidents. In response to pressure from the Insurance industry, our Insurance Act has built-in relief for defendant insurance companies from paying damages to plaintiffs. Briefly, damages under a certain amount are subject to an automatic deductible which stays in the defendant insurer’s pocket. So, if a jury awards you $70,000 for pain and suffering, you will only receive $40,000. The jury is not told that this happens.
Read More about What You Need To Know About Our Insurance Act And Car Accidents
The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), and its prejudicial impact on the health and well-being of motor vehicle injury victims across Ontario, is now firmly entrenched.
Read More about Licence Appeal Tribunal & Its Impact On Motor Injury Victims
Written by Charlene Lewin, Senior Licensed Paralegal at Camisi LLP.
A recent decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) answers the question on whether or not an accident victim’s pre-existing condition prevents him or her
Written by Charlene Lewin, Senior Licensed Paralegal at Camisi LLP.
BY ALAN SHANOFF, TORONTO SUN FIRST POSTED:
Last night in Toronto, there were five separate accidents involving pedestrians in the span of two hours.
Read More about A rough night for pedestrian accidents in Toronto
