Print
 

 Volume. 8 Issue. 23 – June 26, 2024


This week we examine an IRB repayment case wherein the Respondent sought repayment of all IRB paid as a result of multiple misrepresentations. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed only a portion of the repayment sought, determining that only one of the three claims for which repayment was sought was truly confirmed as being the result of wilful misrepresentation.




Multiple Wilful Misrepresentations Claimed but Only One Established

Allstate Entitled to Repayment of $27K of $101K IRB Sought – The Applicant Davis, in Paicente v Allstate (22-007952), Paicente was paid IRB totaling $101,571.44 from July 4, 2016 to June 15, 2018. It was the position of Allstate that they were entitled to a repayment of the entirety of the IRB paid due to wilful misrepresentation on the part of Paicente. They contended that Paicente willfully misrepresented his functional abilities and failed to advise Allstate that he had received both CPP and disability income replacement from RBC. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Allstate was entitled to a repayment of $27,000 of the IRB paid.

Functional Ability Not Misrepresented

The Tribunal found that Paicente had not willfully misrepresented his functional abilities. Allstate contended that the evidence served to demonstrate that Paicente’s two businesses continued to operate post MVA and surveillance confirmed that he was attending the workplace, and therefore he was in fact never entitled to an IRB. However, the Tribunal found that “on a balance of probabilities, that the IRB was not paid to the applicant as a result of the willful misrepresentation of his functional abilities. It was determined that the available evidence confirmed that Paicente’s “psychological impairment was an ongoing disorder that initially disabled him from working but improved over time. The evidence of the applicant’s psychological impairment does not show, as alleged by the respondent, that the applicant was continuously able to work while he received an IRB.”

Two Business Continued with No Income Earned by Applicant

Allstate further pointed to the fact that both of Paicente’s two businesses continued to operate post MVA, noting that Paicente signed tax forms as the director of both companies while he received an IRB. It was noted that during an EUO in September 2018, Paicente testified that his insurance brokerage continues to operate because his son and two daughters perform the administrative work, and that the restaurant he owns was only open in the summer, and that business was operated by his children, even before the MVA. The Tribunal found “that this testimony provides a reasonable explanation for how these businesses were able to continue operating after the accident without the applicant.”



Surveillance Not Determinative

Allstate relied upon four days of surveillance, that they contend demonstrates the Paicente was seen driving to the building where his business office is located. He is seen using the treadmill in the building’s gym and going into his office. The applicant was also seen going to two different residential addresses…”. As a result, they contended that this demonstrates Paicente exhibiting behaviour that shows that he continued to work post MVA, however the Tribunal did not agree.

It was noted that the report “does not state that the applicant was seen working. Instead, the surveillance report documents that the applicant attended the building where the office of his business is located and being observed using the gym. There are also times when he may have been in the office building, but investigators did not know where he was or what he was doing.” In addition, it was said to be “possible that the applicant was working when he was in his office building, but out of view of investigators. However, this is speculation. Therefore, I give the surveillance evidence little weight because it is not helpful in establishing that the applicant was working in his office while receiving an IRB.

The Tribunal found there to be no evidence of Paicente engaging in the core activities of an insurance broker post MVA. The “mere act of signing tax forms for two businesses is not persuasive evidence that the applicant continued working after the accident because this is a straightforward, administrative task, and because there is no evidence that he engaged in the core duties of an insurance broker.” Further, Paicente’s tax records confirmed there to be no employment income in either 2017 or 2018. The Tribunal gave “more weight to the applicant’s income tax records which are consistent with his account of not being able to work after accident. For these reasons, I find that the IRB was not paid to the applicant as a result of the willful misrepresentation of his functional abilities.”

No Misrepresentation Regarding CPP Benefits

Allstate also contended that Paicente willfully misrepresented his entitlement to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits. A letter dated December 20, 2017, confirmed that he had been approved for the CPP Disability Benefit, retroactive to the last three months in 2016. The Tribunal too note that Paicente had on his own initiative confirmed the CPP approval. Additionally, Allstate made “no submissions on the applicant misrepresenting the fact that he had been approved for CPP Disability. For these reasons, I find that the applicant did not receive any IRB as a result of willfully misrepresenting receipt of the CPP Disability Benefit.”

Misrepresentation Regarding Private Disability Benefits Confirmed

Finally, Allstate submitted that Paicente had failed to advise as to his receipt of private disability benefits in a policy of insurance from RBC. It was only at the September 2018 EUO that he confirmed same. The Tribunal concluded that Paicente “failed to inform the respondent of the $43,400.00 in disability income that he received from RBC insurance while also receiving an IRB. In my view, this falls within the parameters of “silence or a failure to report” and constitutes wilful misrepresentation.” Paicente received benefits from RBC for a 27 week period, (July 2016 – January 2017), with Allstate paying $27,000 IRB during the same period. As Allstate would not have paid the $27,000 had they been aware of the RBC benefits, they were entitled to a repayment of same due to the willful misrepresentation.

There was no entitlement to a repayment of the balance of IRB paid, as the repayment notice was more than 12 months after payments were rendered, and there was a finding of no wilful misrepresentation regarding Paicente’s functional impairment levels nor in the receiving of CPP disability benefits.



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

October 30, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT, Divisional Court

October 28, 2024: IE Fails to Explain Lack of Diagnosis

MIG

October 23, 2024: Loose Lid Unexpected "Accident"

Definition Accident

October 21, 2024: Dental Work Required Not Caused by MVA

MIG

October 7, 2024: Continuity of Complaints Confirm Chronic Pain

MIG

October 2, 2024: All Items in Dispute Deemed Incurred

Treatment Plans

September 30, 2024: Ignoring Medical Evidence Proves Award Worthy

MIG

September 25, 2024: Credibility Issues Abound with IE Assessor

IE

September 23, 2024: Reliance on Symptom Magnification Test Proves Fatal

MIG

September 16, 2024: Self Reporting Accepted for Psych MIG Escape

MIG

September 9, 2024: Diagnosis Alone Falls Short in Chronic Pain Case

MIG

September 4, 2024: CAT Finding Upheld on Reconsideration

CAT, Reconsiderations

August 28, 2024: Staged MVA Results in $93K Repayment Order

Definition Accident, Evidence

August 26, 2024: What Exactly Constitutes “Compelling” Evidence?

MIG

August 21, 2024: Extreme Impairment Confirmed in CAT Decision

CAT

August 19, 2024: Post Concussive Syndrome Diagnosed in Telephone Interview

MIG

August 14, 2024: Reconsideration Varies Decision Regarding “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

August 12, 2024: Adverse Inference Considered in MIG Determination

MIG

August 7, 2024: Re-Training Not A Viable Option - Post 104 IRB Confirmed

IRB

July 31, 2024: Applicants Allowed to Proceed to Hearing Despite Alleged Non – Compliance

Insurer’s Examinations, Procedure

July 29, 2024: No Specific Reference to Evidence Precludes MIG Escape

MIG

July 24, 2024: When is a Spouse Not a “Spouse”?

Death Benefit

July 22, 2024: No Evidence Tendered to Rebut Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

July 17, 2024: 196K Grievance Award Factored into IRB Calculation

IRB

July 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Does Not Warrant MIG Escape

MIG

July 10, 2024: Court Allows Applicant to Submit Judicial Review After the Fact

Divisional Court

July 8, 2024: MIG Escape Despite Unrelated Psych Issues

MIG

July 3, 2024:Application Premature On Benefits Claimed in Excess of Limits

Award, CAT, Jurisdiction

June 26, 2024: Multiple Wilful Misrepresentations Claimed but Only One Established

IRB

June 24, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis 4 Years Later Uncontroverted

MIG

June 19, 2024: Court Sets Aside Tribunal Decision and Makes Decision that Ought to Have Been Made

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

June 17, 2024: Cause of ‘Remote’ Finger Fracture Questioned

MIG

June 10, 2024: Reliability on IE Opinions Challenged

MIG

June 5, 2024: IE 'Highly Intrusive' - Not Acceptable Reason For Failure To Attend

Insurer's Examinations

June 3, 2024: MVA Necessary Cause of Subluxation of Shoulder Joint

MIG

May 29, 2024: Practicing Lawyer Seeks CAT Determination

CAT

May 27, 2024: Differing Opinions on Right Knee Injury Causation

MIG

May 22, 2024: Four Marked Impairments CAT and Post 104 IRB Confirmed

CAT, IRB

May 15, 2024: Court Confirms Three Breaches of Procedural Fairness by Tribunal

Div Court

May 13, 2024: Little Weight Given to Illegible Doctor's Notes

MIG

May 8, 2024: Reasonable Perception of Bias Involving Former Adjudicator Requires Rehearing

Reconsideration

May 6, 2024: Potential Causation Does Not Support MIG Escape

MIG

May 1, 2024: Tribunal Varies Three Decisions on Reconsideration

Reconsideration, Treatment Plans

April 29, 2024: Credibility of Assessment Favored Over Psych Validity Testing

MIG

April 24, 2024: Wilful Misrepresentation Abounds on IRB Repayments

IRB

April 22, 2024: Records Alone Do Not Warrant MIG Removal on Pre-Existing

MIG

April 15, 2024: Demands of Child-birth Pre-Existing Condition?

MIG

April 10, 2024: Court Upholds Tribunal Decision That a MIG Removal is a Complete MIG Removal

Divisional Court, MIG

April 8, 2024: Psychiatric Diagnosis Prevails over Psychological Opinion

MIG

April 3, 2024: Court Sends Matter Back to Tribunal Concerning “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

April 1, 2024: Ortho Opinion Prevails on Origins of a Fracture

MIG

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