Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 22 – June 8, 2022



In ‘Umbrella Mishap More Significant Than Accident’, the Tribunal considers an application for a CAT determination, for an Applicant who had sustained a concussion when a yard umbrella fell on her head eight months prior, rendering her unable to return to work. The Tribunal also took great exception to an interaction between counsel for the Applicant and an expert witness shortly prior to the hearing.

In ‘Doing More Than You Were Before the Accident’, an Applicant who received NEB for nine months post accident, was not entitled to further NEB as the evidence suggested he was doing more after the accident than before.



Reason Codes Are Here – Added Layer of Understanding!


Exciting News! Search and Filter by Reasons

Reason codes add a deeper layer of understanding on the reason for the decision and associated issues in dispute. This added value is included in all subscription levels at no extra cost.


Try It Now!

Book your walk-through with an inHEALTH team member by emailing service@inhealth.ca or send us a message through Live Chat!



Umbrella Incident Trumps Accident & Witness Compromised by Interaction with Counsel

Umbrella Mishap More Significant Than AccidentThe Applicant Rao, injured in an April 2016 accident, was in the process of recovering from an August 2015 incident which had resulted in a concussion and an inability to work.

As it happens, in 20-001654 v Wawanesa, Rao was on her way to her first day at work following the earlier incident, when the subject accident occurred. The earlier incident involved a large yard umbrella striking her on the head as it fell, which resulted in what was determined to be a concussion. The Tribunal noted that the subject accident was “relatively light” but was prepared to accept that it did affect Rao. As a result of the accident in question, sought a CAT determination.

Wawanesa submitted that there was no reliable evidence attributing Rao’s current condition to the accident, objective evidence points to her being better now than she was leading up to the subject accident, and validity testing regarding cognitive and psychological functioning “follows an abnormal course”. The Tribunal confirmed “I, generally, agree.” The Tribunal found that Rao’s “symptoms and general psychological state deteriorated after and as a result of the subject accident – perhaps even to catastrophic levels for a period.” However subsequently “she appears to have improved from her low point following the accident to non-catastrophic levels.” Generally, the Tribunal found that “psychological and neuropsychological and cognitive testing from the various assessors does not point to a marked impairment; rather, they point more likely to mild impairments, and perhaps less given the validity concerns”.

Rao also sought entitlement to post 104 IRB. The Tribunal found that “while it’s not clear by a preponderance of the evidence that M.R. currently suffers a “complete inability” from a combination of the two events and her underlying conditions, M.R. has not established that her current inability is “as a result of the accident”. While accepting that the accident affected Rao more than would have been anticipated given she was still recovering from the umbrella incident, and may well have sustained a second concussion, “the evidence points to it being mild from a physiological point of view and seems to have resolved on its own.” The Tribunal concluded that Rao “appears to have returned to post-umbrella, but pre-accident impairment levels – and in fact improved from those levels.”

There was further found to have been a significant evidentiary issue with one of Rao’s experts. The expert had completed a consultation note that made no mention whatsoever of the subject accident, referring only to a “history of PTSD concussion in 2015”. However, during testimony, the expert “referenced the subject accident without being prompted and was emphatic that it contributed to M.R.’s presentation.” Queried by counsel for Wawanesa as to why her testimony was now inconsistent with her records, the expert offered that she had spoken to Rao’s lawyer seeking clarification as to why Wawanesa had summonsed her, and it was during that conversation that she first became aware of the subject accident.”

The Tribunal found that “the circumstances of the discussion greatly weakens her testimony… my review of the doctor’s conflicting evidence overall leads me to assign less weight to it.” While noting that counsel for Rao was not subverting evidence, he ultimately “provided significant, substantive information to the witness with a net effect of the doctor providing conflicting evidence”. Therefore “under the circumstances, my consideration of (the expert’s) evidence is taken with care.”



Nine Months NEB Suffices

Doing More Than You Were Before the Accident – Injured in a January 2020 accident, the Applicant Zia, in 20-014022 v Economical, sought payment of NEB from November 2020 through to the 104 week mark

The Tribunal noted that Zia had sustained an objective impairment as he fractured his left elbow which required the insertion of a prothesis. Further, given evidence of ongoing pain and stiffness, Zia was found entitled to four treatment plans for physical therapy. The Tribunal accepted that Zia “may have had some more serious functional limitations in his daily activities in the period shortly following the accident”.

However, the Tribunal did not find that Zia had “any ongoing accident-related limitations that would result in a complete inability to carry on a normal life from November 2, 2020 onwards.” It was noted that following the accident, Zia graduated from high school and has successfully completed two years of university and he is a straight A student. In addition, he had gained summer employment with his university as a research assistant which required him to work 7 hours a day 5 days a week and had. also worked as a peer tutor. Ultimately, the Tribunal agreed with Economical that “the evidence supports that he has carried out more activities of daily living post-accident than he did pre-accident.”



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On