Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 8 – March 2, 2022



Home modification issues take center stage this week. The first case considers a fundamentally flawed alternative housing assessment, as the assessor was for whatever reason unaware that the Applicant already had what seemed to be a ready made alternative housing option.

The second case confirms that presenting claims for home modification is a two step process, with assessments capped at $2,000, which the first case seems to have opted not to follow.


 

Advance your best case with an Outcome Analysis Report!

Request OAR



Home Modification Expert Unaware Applicant Already had Viable Option

Wait – You Already Own a House?The Applicant, J.D., rendered CAT in an August 2018 accident sought entitlement to 22 discrete denied or partially denied medical and rehabilitation benefits in J.D. v Intact (19-002767). Included were the costs for alternative housing, an assessment regarding same and Attendant Care.

Regarding alternative housing, JD’s expert prepared a treatment plan with various recommendations ranging from $357,000 to $1.1M. However, fatal to JD’s claim was the fact that the expert was somehow unaware that JD had access to his late father’s home … which he inherited jointly with his siblings in June of 2017. In fact, following the accident, JD spent considerable time post accident at this property, including staying alone overnight on several occasions.

The fact that the expert was not aware as to the existence of this property was found to be “problematic”. The expert himself confirmed that had he been aware of the residence he would have inspected same to determine if it was a reasonable option. As a result, the Tribunal found that while the alternative housing assessment was “reasonable”, given the severity of the injuries involved, it was not “necessary”, as a potential legitimate option was not considered.

Related, the Tribunal did however find that JD was entitled to the full cost of the initial housing assessment, indicating there to be “no legitimate reason for denying this treatment plan partially, and therefore award the remaining $8,858.78 to be paid.” This would appear to be contrary to Tribunal jurisprudence regarding the $2,000 cap on assessments of any kind, as confirmed and followed by the 2nd case considered this week.

The Applicant also sought ACB at the CAT maximum of $6,000 per month. The Tribunal accepted that JD required assistance for certain daily activities however, was not persuaded that JD required service 24/7. Without providing any rationale or breakdown of the ACB requirements, the Tribunal found it “reasonable to award the applicant $3,000.00 per month for attendant care services. The applicant may require less attendant care services in the future as his condition continues to improve.”



Claiming Home Modification a Two Step Process

No “Feasibility Studies” Allowed – Gosselin deemed CAT in 2017 following a 2010 accident sought numerous benefits amongst them being a treatment plan for home modifications, in Gosselin v Travelers (20-008566). The treatment plan for home modifications for $33,309 proposed to complete architectural construction drawings, including allowances for consultation with engineers and other specialists, to tender to local contractors to receive construction bids, with the goal of providing Gosselin with a safe and functional home environment.

The evidence reflected that Travelers had previously approved a home modification assessment that was capped at the maximum of $2,000 as per s.25(2) of the Schedule. The Tribunal noted that this assessment was apparently used to fund a “feasibility study”, and now relies upon that study to justify the proposed home modification assessment.

Travelers asserted that Gosselin “must first identify the necessary modification needs by way of a single assessment under section 25 of the Schedule, followed by a single treatment and assessment plan outlining the full modification cost.”

The Tribunal noted that Gosselin saw the process for claiming home modification to be a multistep one, and that the item proposed was not under s.25 of the Schedule, as it relates to home modifications, not health status. The Tribunal agreed with Travelers that in fact it is a two stage process, and further that said assessment would be held to the $2,000 cap as per s.25, being “an assessment of the Applicant’s health status”. The “process for claiming home modification benefits begins with an assessment and, if necessary, is followed by a treatment plan with a full cost of the home modifications.”

Concluding, the Tribunal found it “incumbent on the Applicant to seek an assessment that will provide a full costing of the home modifications so that the Respondent may weigh those costs against the cost to purchase a new home, which as the Respondent noted, is its statutory right. To me, the two-part process is in harmony with the Tribunal decisions on the issue.”

Therefore, the proposed treatment plan was found not to be reasonable and necessary, as it fails to “outline the full costs of the home modifications proposed and deprive the Respondent from its statutory right to weigh the cost of home modifications against the cost of purchasing a new home.”



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