Category: LAT Rules

Cruz v. Belair Insurance Company (20-014208)

The claimant was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in September 2017, in which she sustained multiple fractures. She applied to the LAT seeking CAT determination under Criteria 7 and entitlement to post-104 IRBs, medical benefits, and a special award. Vice-Chair Lester decided to exclude two insurer reports that were served after the deadline for productions. The claimant was permitted to call the claims adjuster despite late service of particulars for the claim for a special award. The claimant’s assessors determined the claimant had a WPI rating of 66%. The insurer’s assessors determined the claimant had a WPI rating of 40%. Vice-Chair Lester determined that the WPI ratings of the claimant’s assessors were incorrect for a variety of reasons, including advancing a rating for a future risk. Vice-Chair Lester found that the claimant had a combined WPI rating of 47% and was not catastrophically impaired. The claimant’s pre-accident employment jobs had all been part-time short-term positions in retail, childcare, and a travel agency. Vice-Chair Lester found that the claimant was unable to sit long enough for any sedentary part-time position and was entitled to post-104 IRBs. The claimant was entitled to OT services and physiotherapy. She was not entitled to a SPECT assessment or a special award.

Smith v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (20-006605)

The claimant was involved in an accident in 2017. He applied to the LAT seeking CAT determination under Criteria 2,6, 7, and 8, as well as entitlement to NEBs, ACBs, and medical benefits. Causation was a key issue at the hearing. Adjudicator Hines held that the “but for” test was the appropriate test to determine causation. The crux of the dispute was whether the accident led to the progression of pre-existing peripheral arterial disease resulting in the above-knee amputation of the claimant’s right leg in September 2020. Adjudicator Hines found that the claimant was catastrophically impaired under Criteria 2 because the accident was a “but for” cause of the amputation, and entitled to NEBs, ACBs, chiropractic treatment, and the cost of CAT assessments. He was not entitled to the cost of a home exercise program. Adjudicator Hines allowed the insurer to rely on late-served CAT reports as they were responding to a new OCF-19 submitted by the claimant. Adjudicator Hines excluded an insurer addendum report as it was served two-days before the hearing and there was no reason why the causation issue addressed in the addendum report could not have been addressed in the initial report.

Papadakis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (2022 ONSC 6928)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment, and that he was not entitled to IRBs or further physiotherapy. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The only point of law raised in the appeal was whether the Tribunal was correct to exclude a WPI rating for a contingency of future events. The Court agreed that the Tribunal was correct in excluding future contingencies. The authorities support the conclusion that the WPI rating is based on a person’s presentation at the hearing without contingency for future changes. The Court also agreed with the Tribunal’s exclusion of WPI ratings for pre-existing conditions, as the AMA Guides require deducting from the WPI rating the estimated impairment ratings for pre-existing injuries or conditions in order to obtain the net WPI from accident-related impairments. The Court dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal as not raising points of law. The arguments regarding ignoring evidence and rulings on witnesses did not raise appropriate grounds for appeal, and the claimant was not permitted to raise additional issues not contained in the Notice of Appeal.

Crecoukias v. Toronto Transit Commission (19-014590)

The claimant witnessed an individual being struck and killed by a bus. He applied to the LAT for a catastrophic impairment designation, and disputing entitlement to ACBs and various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant’s severe psychological impairments were the result of pre-existing schizophrenia that was already worsening prior to the accident. Adjudicator Neilson agreed with the insurer. Although she accepted that the claimant suffered a psychological injury from witnessing the incident, she found that the schizophrenia and severe psychological impairments demonstrated by the claimant were not a result of the accident, and that it would have developed regardless. The claimant showed a prodromal stage of schizophrenia from a young age, and he was at high risk from developing schizophrenia due to drug use and family history of psychosis. The evidence of the claimant’s mother was rejected as being non-credible as it was contradicted by the medical records of the claimant’s treating psychiatric team. Adjudicator Neilson also noted that she rejected the opinion of the claimant’s catastrophic impairment experts, as it was a chiropractor that provided the AMA ratings following assessment and diagnosis by a psychiatrist. Even using the opinion of the claimant’s psychiatrist, Adjudicator Neilson found that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a Class 4 marked impairment or Class 5 extreme impairment in any of the four spheres of function as a result of the accident. Adjudicator Neilson did not need to address the claims for ACBs or medical benefits as the claimant had exhausted his medical benefits limits. However, in the event she was overturned with regard to the catastrophic impairment decision, she would have held that the unpaid ACBs related to transportation for the service provider, which was not payable under the SABS. She also found the claimed transportation to be inconsistent with the claimant’s ability to drive himself. Adjudicator Neilson also would have rejected the denied rehabilitation support worker services, as they were duplicative of services the claimant was already receiving at CAMH. Finally, Adjudicator Neilson would have rejected the claims related to the hotel stays, because they were claimed as medical benefits and incurred without a treatment plan. There were also procedural matters addressed at the outset of the hearing. Adjudicator Neilson allowed the insurer’s IE psychiatrist to observe the testimony of the claimant’s psychiatric expert; she allowed a defence medical report completed in the tort matter to be admitted as the insurer had access to the report and it had been provided to other expert witnesses; she allowed the insurer’s IE psychiatrist to testify to matters not contained in the report, while giving the claimant’s expert an opportunity to respond by way of reply evidence; and she restricted the claimant’s catastrophic impairment chiropractor to limiting his testimony to matters pertaining to the spine and musculoskeletal system only.

Mahoney v. Jevco Insurance Company (21-004916)

This motion was brought by the claimant for a declaration that she was not barred from proceeding to a hearing due to non-attendance at a psychological IE. The claimant argued that the Notice of Examination for the IE did not satisfy the requirements in s. 44, and that s. 55(1) was not triggered because the IE had been requested after she had filed her LAT application. Adjudicator Mazerolle found that the Notice of Examination satisfied the requirements under s. 44 as it provided sufficient medical and other reasons for the assessment. Although it was concerning that the insurer had served the Notice of Examination in September 2021, despite the disputed treatment plan having been submitted on March 23, 2021, Adjudicator Mazerolle found that the insurer had requested medical records from the claimant on March 29, 2021, one week after the disputed treatment plan had been submitted, and had not received these records until August 21, 2021. He reasoned that the insurer had waited to receive these records before setting up the IE and had requested the IE with the intention of properly adjusting the claim. The adjudicator rejected the claimant’s argument that s. 55(1) would only be triggered if the IE was requested before a LAT application was filed, as this would impair the insurer’s ability to seek assessments under s. 44 and because it went against the principle that an insurer’s duty to adjust a claim in good faith did not end when litigation began. However, Adjudicator Mazerolle exercised the discretion granted under s. 55(2) and permitted the application to proceed because there remained ample time for the IE to be completed before the hearing.

Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company (2022 ONSC 4082)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s motion decision dismissing her request to add punitive damages to the LAT application. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the motion was an interlocutory step. The Tribunal’s decision could only be appealed upon the final decision on the merits.

Penney v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (2022 ONSC 3874)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision denying her motion to remove the insurer’s counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. The insurer’s counsel acted in the LAT dispute and in a priority dispute. The Divisional Court in The Personal v. Jia upheld a decision by the Tribunal that such representation in both matters was a conflict. In the present case, the Tribunal found that no conflict existed, and the matter was to proceed to a hearing. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s order was interlocutory in nature, and the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The LAT Act restricted appeals to final decisions of the Tribunal. The Court was critical of the decision in The Personal v. Jia, stating that the panel hearing that matter erred in agreeing to hear the appeal, and the Court in the present matter declined to follow it. The Court commented+B2004 that a party could seek judicial review of an interlocutory decision, but only in exception circumstances, and the Court noted that the claimant in this matter had not sought judicial review.

Yevdokymova v. Economical Insurance (21-000502)

The claimant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and entitlement to various medical benefits and attendant care benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant was barred from disputing entitlement because an earlier hearing regarding NEBs already concluded that the claimant did not suffer the majority of the injuries or impairments allegedly sustained in the accident. The insurer also argued that the claim for ACBs was barred due to the claimant’s failure to participate in an IE, as the claimant had put conditions on her attendance, including the presence of her own occupational therapist. In response, the claimant argued that the current dispute was for different benefits, and as such, the earlier decision on NEBs was irrelevant. The claimant also argued that she ought to be permitted to have her own occupational therapist observe the in-home assessment requested by the insurer. Vice Chair Flude agreed with the insurer and held that the claimant’s current application was barred by res judicata. Although the specific benefits and designation at issue were different than the NEB hearing, the findings of fact in the NEB hearing were so closely related that to allow the claimant’s application to proceed would amount to an abuse of process. Vice Chair Flude also held that the claimant could not impose conditions on her attendance and participation in the requested in-home IE. The insurer met all requirements of section 44 when requesting the IE. As such, the claimant’s failure to participate in the format requested by the insurer triggered section 55. Vice Chair Flude dismissed the dispute in relation to a catastrophic impairment, and stayed the dispute in relation to ACBs until the claimant participated in the in-home IE.

Waring v Aviva General Insurance Company (21-012529)

A videoconference hearing had been arranged in relation to catastrophic impairment and attendant care. Ahead of the hearing, the claimant filed a motion to exclude a report from the insurer relating to ACBs and alleged the insurer’s notice was deficient. The claimant argued that the resulting report and Form 1 should be excluded from the hearing as per N.M. v. Aviva. The claimant’s issue was with a notice relating to a CAT IE with an occupational therapist. The claimant stated that the notice stated only CAT was to be assessed, however, upon arrival the OT informed the claimant that ACBs were also being determined during the evaluation. The claimant request that only the ACB report be struck from the hearing for deficient notice. Adjudicator Mazerolle noted that the original IE notice on March 24, 2021 only referenced CAT as an issue being assessed. Following completion of the assessment, the claimant was not provided with any further written notice that ACBs would also be addressed in the coming report. The insurer did not mention this until June 21, 2021, which was beyond the five business day notice of a benefit being addressed by IE as per s. 44(6). Adjudicator Mazerolle noted that this was a breach of the SABS and a “serious impediment” to the consumer protection mandate, as it deprived the claimant of the chance to be an active participant in the adjusting process, which could not be remedied by a retroactive notice. The insurer argued that the claimant “accepted the scope” of the IE as the OT explained to the claimant that ACBs would be addressed upon their arrival, and the claimant consented. Adjudicator Mazerolle did not accept this argument, noting that definition of a waiver for a notice requirement under s. 44(6) needed to be between the insured person and the insurer, not with the IE assessor. The report and accompanying Form 1 were struck from the hearing record.

Maillet v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (20-011519)

The insurer brought a motion requesting that the claimant’s application for IRBs be barred under s. 55(1) due to IE non-attendance. The claimant had failed to attend a post 104-week physiatry IE on four occasions. Adjudicator Mazerolle found that the Notice of Examination provided sufficient medical and other reasons for the examination under s. 44. Nonetheless, he exercised his discretion permitted under s. 55(2) to allow the IRB claim to continue. He found that the claimant had participated in other IEs, which demonstrated her interest to pursue the claim. He noted that two of the missed four IEs had been postponed due to COVID-related concerns, and that the claimant had been ill for the most recently rescheduled IE. Above all, Adjudicator Mazerolle found that the parties had enough time before the hearing to reschedule and complete the IE and ordered that the IRB claim proceed.