• Areas of Practice
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases
Menu
  • Areas of Practice
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases

LAT Case Law Summaries

Commercial/Tort Case Law Summaries

Back To All Case Summaries
Back To All Case Summaries

A.A. v. Unifund Assurance Company (18-008999)

  • February 24, 2021

The insurer filed a request for reconsideration of a LAT hearing decision, in which the adjudicator found that the claimant was entitled to attendant care benefits at a reduced rate and medical expenses. The insurer submitted that the adjudicator erred in making the inference that because the claimant met the threshold for catastrophic impairment, she continued to meet the test for attendant care benefits. The insurer further argued that the adjudicator failed to apply the proper “but for” test for causation. Vice Chair Maedel found that the adjudicator applied the “but for” test in relation to the attendant care benefits analysis, and had not made any errors in fact or law that would have otherwise led to a different decision on the attendant care issue. Vice Chair Maedel found that the adjudicator did make an error in fact and law when she relied on the insurer’s previous approval of travel expenses to find that the current therapy services in dispute were reasonable and necessary and caused by the accident. Previous approval of a benefit was found to be irrelevant and cannot determine causation. Each treatment plan should be evaluated on whether the treatment can be causally linked to the accident and whether the treatments is reasonable and necessary. Vice Chair Maedel found that s. 46(5) does not entitle a claimant to automatic payment of incurred benefits following a catastrophic impairment designation. A claimant must still demonstrate the treatment is causally related to the accident and is reasonable and necessary. In addition, Vice Chair Maedel found that a catastrophically impaired claimant is not entitled to medical benefits that were incurred prior to submission of an OCF-18, even when an insurer has repeatedly denied medical benefits because the non-CAT limit had been reached. The request for reconsideration was granted in part.

Full decision here
Full decision here

TGP Analysis

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum placerat ex vitae dui dignissim, in iaculis tellus venenatis. Nam aliquet mauris eros. Mauris vitae justo sit amet nisi dictum euismod in sed nisl. Donec blandit, justo eu pellentesque sodales, eros urna dignissim tortor, non imperdiet enim massa ut orci. Pellentesque id lacus viverra, consectetur neque ac, congue lorem.

PrevPrevious Case
Next CaseNext
  • FILED UNDER Medical Benefits, Attendant Care Benefits, Reconsideration
SHARE
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

smilne@tgplawyers.com

  • Areas of Practice
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
  • Careers

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox

Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox

  • Areas of Practice
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
  • Careers

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

smilne@tgplawyers.com

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Statement of Principles

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP