Category: Catastrophic Impairment

Khan v. Allstate Insurance Company (2023 ONSC 3652)

The claimant appealed the LAT’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. The claimant argued that procedural fairness was denied because he did not know the insurer would argue that an intervening event was the cause of his impairments, and argued that the LAT applied the wrong causation test. The LAT dismissed the appeal. Regarding procedural fairness, the Court held that the claimant’s failure to object to the insurer’s arguments at any point during the original hearing prevented him from advancing this argument on appeal. Failure to object deprived the Court of the evidence necessary to establish how the LAT would have dealt with the concern. Regarding causation, the Court held the LAT applied the proper “but for” test. The material contribution test is only applicable where there are multiple tortfeasors and there is risk of tortfeasors escaping liability by pointing the finger at one another. That was not the case in this dispute where the claimant suffered a medical event weeks after the accident.

Darwich v. The Co-operators (20-015268)

The claimant applied to the LAT for a catastrophic impairment designation and the cost of a private addiction treatment centre. The claimant suffered injuries from an accident that culminated in him being prescribed increasingly higher amounts of morphine to relieve his accident-related back pain. At some point, the claimant’s historic substance abuse issues, which were dormant for many years, had resurfaced and he relapsed. The claimant subsequently turned to illicit drugs to cope with his pain and stress. He was diagnosed with polysubstance abuse disorder, depression and somatic symptom disorder. While the claimant was on a positive trajectory after completing an in-patient drug treatment program, he eventually relapsed while battling cancer and passed away shortly after the LAT hearing . Given that the claimant passed away shortly after the LAT hearing, the question of catastrophic impairment was rendered moot. The sole issue remaining was whether the claimant’s attendance at the private addiction treatment centre was reasonable and necessary. Adjudicator Norris considered whether the accident caused the claimant to experience depression, somatic symptom disorder and to relapse into polysubstance disorder. Adjudicator Norris held that the accident need not be the sole cause of the claimant’s injuries but need only be found to be a factor that materially contributed to the injuries. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the claimant’s polysubstance use disorder was directly caused by the accident, and the in-patient treatment program was an accident-related expense. Even though the addiction treatment received by the claimant could have been covered by OHIP, Adjudicator Norris found that it was reasonable and necessary, as expert evidence revealed that the urgency of the situation required immediate treatment and certain on-site care that an OHIP-funded facility could not provide for.

Achaia-Shiwram v. Intact Insurance Company (20-004699)

The claimant applied to the LAT disputing her entitlement to IRBs and CAT impairment. The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claimant did not dispute IRB entitlement within 2 years pursuant to s. 56. At the beginning of the in-person hearing, the claimant attempted to summons two witnesses, the claims adjuster and the CAT OT IE assessor. The respondent objected to these witnesses as the claimant had not provided their names on the witness list provided to the respondent and because the claimant had not properly served a summons to witness on either the claims adjuster or the CAT OT IE assessor. Adjudicator Hines agreed with the respondent noting that the potential witnesses were not served with a summons despite the claimant having ample time to do so. Adjudicator Hines also noted that because the claimant did not include them on their witness list, the respondent would be prejudiced by adding them as witnesses on the eve of the hearing, as the respondent would not have had time to prepare for examinations. The claimant also brought a motion to exclude an IE report based on the hourly rate charged by the IE doctor. The IE doctor confirmed her hourly rate was $225 hour and charged $3,375 for the IE assessment. However, the respondent provided an OCF-21 invoice that confirmed it paid the IE assessor $2,000 as per s. 25 of the SABS. Adjudicator Hines allowed the IE report as evidence. As for the substantial issues, Adjudicator Hines preferred the evidence of the IE assessors with respect to CAT and noted that causation was a major factor. With respect to causation, Adjudicator Hines noted that the claimant argued that the accident caused a decline in her employment performance; however, her failure to submit post-accident employment records to this effect weakened her argument. Adjudicator Hines also pointed to an intervening event of a volleyball injury, which caused further deterioration in the claimant’s condition and ability to work. Adjudicator Hines found that the claimant did not meet her onus of proving that but for the accident she would not have sustained the psychological impairment which formed the basis of her CAT application and IRB claim. As Adjudicator Hines concluded that the claimant did not meet the IRBs disability test, she did not rule on the s. 56 limitation period argument.

Kaur v. Northbridge General Insurance Company (21-001035)

The claimant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. Vice Chair Moore held that the claimant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 or Criterion 8. Vice Chair Moore found the insurer’s WPI ratings more persuasive. In particular, the Vice Chair preferred the position of the insurer’s assessors that there needed to be a specific accident-related diagnosis to justify an impairment rating, rather than simply reports of symptoms. Vice Chair Moore was critical of the claimant’s assessors, who appeared to apply WPI ratings in excess of diagnosed accident-related injuries and which were not in accordance with the AMA Guides. Vice Chair Moore found a total of 6 percent WPI for physical impairment, which was too low to combine with psychological impairment to exceed 55 percent WPI. In terms of Criterion 8, Vice Chair Moore found that at least two domains (activities of daily living and concentration, persistence, and pace) did not meet a Class 4 Marked Impairment, and as such, the claimant could not qualify for a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8. As a procedural preliminary issue, Vice Chair Moore excluded the insurer’s supplementary document brief containing surveillance because it was served on the first day of the hearing. Although the surveillance had been provided during settlement discussions, the Tribunal found that failure to include the surveillance in the original document brief meant that the claimant was not expecting to comment and rebut the findings therein.

Chu v. Unica Insurance Inc. (20-001934)

The claimant applied to the LAT for a catastrophic impairment designation under Criteria 8. She had already exhausted her $65,000 non-CAT policy limit. The claimant bore the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that she had a “Marked” or Class 4 impairment in at least three of the four domains set out in the AMA Guides. Adjudicator Forbes noted that a “Marked” impairment sufficient for a CAT designation requires the claimant to show that their impairments “significantly impede useful functioning.” In conducting this analysis, Adjudicator Forbes emphasized that it was crucial that the claimant’s pre- and post-accident functions be accounted for based on the available medical and documentary evidence. Adjudicator Forbes found that the medical and documentary evidence showed that the claimant had pre-existing limitations on her daily life before the accident, which were not significantly impeded by the accident, and that the claimant’s post-accident condition showed signs of improvement. Adjudicator Forbes held that the presence of “some” post-accident limitations on a claimant’s useful functioning does not rise to the high bar of significantly impeded useful functioning. As a result, the claimant was not deemed CAT and no further medical/rehabilitation benefits were payable.

Boni v CAA Insurance Company (20-007645)

The claimant applied for CAT designation for injuries arising from a 2017 accident. The insurer acknowledged that the claimant was catastrophically impaired, but argued that he had already been impaired before the accident occurred. The insurer argued that the claimant had been taking prescription medications for depression and sleep difficulties before the accident. The claimant had also been seeing a physiatrist regularly and had discussed going on long-term disability in the year leading up to the accident due to physical impairments. At the hearing, the claimant’s friends and family testified that the claimant had been a very socially active, funny, and well-liked person, and that he had changed significantly in his social activities and temperament following the accident. The claimant’s family doctor also testified that despite his physical and psychological impairments, the claimant would have been functionally capable of continuing in his pre-accident employment had the accident not occurred. Adjudicator Tyler Moore accepted the evidence of the claimant’s witnesses and held that he had suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

Khalaf v The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (20-000264)

The claimant was involved in an accident on October 19, 2016, and applied for accident benefits. The dispute involved the insurer denying catastrophic impairment under criterion 8, based on the s. 44 psychiatry IE of Dr. Sivasubramanian, and involved a 7-day videoconference hearing. Initially, Dr. Sivasubramanian had opined that the claimant suffered 2 Class 4 Marked Impairments; however, after viewing surveillance evidence, Dr. Sivasubramanian changed his opinion, and opined that the claimant suffered, at most, a Class 1 Mild Impairment in all domains. The matter was complicated by the fact that the claimant already had severe pre-existing psychological issues prior to the MVA, was assaulted immediately after the MVA, and was involved in a second MVA in 2021. After the second accident, the claimant reported he was “fully functioning and in good health” prior to this event. The claimant argued that the subject accident caused all of his impairments, worsened all of his psychological issues, and rendered him unable to function. In order to determine if the claimant’s issues were as a result of the subject accident, Adjudicator Hines reviewed the evidence and applied the “but for” test. Adjudicator Hines noted that the claimant’s pre-accident records were quite clear that he had numerous severe issues prior the subject accident, including trauma over being kidnapped and tortured in Iraq, and he appeared to have limited functionality. The claimant was also accepted for ODSP just two months prior to the index accident and had at least moderate restrictions to all of spheres of function. Furthermore, Adjudicator Hines did not find the claimant to be a credible witness. When examined, the claimant would often claim he “did not know” or “could not remember” key evidence. He denied that the person on surveillance was him and claimed it was his brother; however, Adjudicator Hines noted that all three of the claimant’s brothers were deceased and had all passed away prior to the surveillance being taken. Furthermore, the claimant’s assessors were not in receipt of the ODSP file showing severe impairments pre-accident, which rendered their CAT opinions unreliable. Based on the above, Adjudicator Hines accepted Dr. Sivasubramanian’s opinion that the claimant had, at most, mild impairments to his functioning as a result of the subject accident and did not satisfy the criteria for catastrophic impairment. The claim was dismissed

Shahin v. Intact Insurance Company (21-002418)

The claimant applied to the LAT for a determination that she was catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8. The claimant struggled with anxiety due to pre-existing health issues, for which she received treatment prior to the accident. It was thus incumbent upon the claimant to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that, but for the accident, she would not have been psychologically impaired. Adjudicators Grant and Fogarty specified that in situations like this, the accident need not be sufficient per se to have caused the impairments in question but need only have been a “necessary cause”, leading to an exacerbation of the claimant’s pre-existing condition. The claimant argued that, prior to the accident she had been in remission from her pre-existing mental health issues and that she was not receiving any treatment for them. The insurer contended that the sole cause of the claimant’s psychological issues were her past health issues. Adjudicators Grant and Fogarty held that the claimant was struggling with and being treated for her long-standing mental health issues immediately prior to the accident. But for the accident, the claimant would have still been receiving treatment for her mental health issues. Furthermore, there was evidence that the claimant had reduced the dosage of her anti-anxiety medication and that her prognosis and ability to cope with her prognosis had improved since the accident. This led the Adjudicators to conclude that her condition was not exacerbated by the accident and that the claimant’s condition did not rise to the level of a Class 4 impairment under the SABS.

C.S. v Travelers Insurance (20-014495)

The claimant was injured in an accident in 2014. She applied to the LAT seeking a catastrophic impairment determination under Criteria 8. Adjudicator Lake found that a failure to return to one’s pre-accident employment is not on its own evidence of a Class 4 “marked” impairment in the domain of Adaptation and determined that the claimant failed to prove that she sustained a CAT impairment. Adjudicator Lake placed limited weight on the opinions of the claimant’s OT and psychiatry assessors because (a) the claimant failed to report her actual level of function to the CAT assessors and (b) the psychiatry assessor strayed from his role as an expert and became an advocate for the applicant. The application was dismissed.

Vaillancourt v. The Guarantee Company of North America (21-008125)

The claimant was previously deemed catastrophically impaired. He applied to the LAT to resolve a dispute concerning the quantum of certain benefits, including attendant care and home modifications. Prior to the accident, the claimant managed his own consulting company, was quite active, and regularly enjoyed doing housework. The insurer denied much of the claimant’s attendant care claim on the basis that the surveillance it collected and the assessments it conducted revealed that the claimant could perform such tasks without supervision and that his post-accident impairments were overstated. Adjudicator Lundy disagreed, preferring the claimant’s framework which focused on the claimant’s functional ability to perform predictably, consistently and reliably. Adjudicator Lundy emphasized that the insurer failed to account for these principles by concluding that the snippets of surveillance it collected showing the claimant performing housework and manual labour indicated that his condition was overstated, when, in reality, the surveillance and assessments undertaken by the insurer failed to account for the fact that the claimant struggled to perform these tasks and that his condition differed on a day-to-day basis. As a result, Adjudicator Lundy found that the claimant was entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $6,000.00 per month. The insurer denied the claimant’s proposed home modifications on the basis that his medical/rehabilitation funds were nearly exhausted. Despite eventually designating the claimant CAT, the insurer stood firm in its denial of the proposed home modifications. Adjudicator Lundy found that the claimant fulfilled his evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the home modification assessment and all but two of the proposed home modifications (valued at $87,809.00) fit the criteria of being necessary and reasonable. Despite the insurer’s refusal to pay for the proposed attendant care and home modifications, Adjudicator Lundy found that the claimant was not entitled to a special award. The insurer had triable concerns regarding whether many of the claimant’s proposed plans were necessary and agreed that the claimant was eligible for attendant care and some home modifications, albeit not to the valuations sought by the claimant.