Print

 

 Volume. 9 Issue. 7 – February 26, 2025



NEB Payable to 104 Week Mark Due to Technical Breaches

This week the Tribunal considers a case wherein the Applicant successfully sought NEB through to the 104 week mark, based solely upon the Respondent’s technical/procedural basis.



Virtual Training – New Sessions Added!

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training sessions!

  • BI Fundamentals: March 31- April 4, 2025
  • SABS Expedited: May 5-9, 2025

*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion

Course details & register here +

 


Full NEB Granted on Procedural Basis – Injured in a January 2020 MVA, the Applicant Bergstrom, in 22-011676 v TD Insurance, sought entitlement to NEB through to the 104-week mark, citing multiple technical breaches on the part of TD. Bergstrom did not adduce any evidence with respect to the merits of his entitlement, with his arguments being solely related to technical or procedural breaches of TD’s denial notices. Bergstrom conceded that his Disability Certificate (“OCF-3”) was not submitted to the TD until October 23, 2020, and therefore agreed that there was no entitlement to NEBs prior to this date.

Bergstrom submitted that both of TD’s denial notices, dated October 28, 2020 and December 17, 2021 were non-compliant with s. 36(4)(b) of the Schedule. The Tribunal firstly agreed that the October 28, 2020 correspondence “did not provide medical and any other reasons why the respondent did not believe the applicant was entitled to the NEBs, as required by s. 36(4)(b). In its stated reasons, the respondent did not specify that it did not believe that the applicant was entitled to NEBs. I agree with the applicant’s submissions that the letter instead stated that the respondent was “unable to determine if” the applicant was eligible for NEBs. It further requested the applicant’s attendance at s. 44 insurer’s examinations to “assist us in determining your eligibility”. As such, the October 28, 2020 denial did not make a determination on entitlement as required by s. 36(4)(b).”

TD argued that the decisions cited by Bergstrom are irrelevant, as they were decided prior to the release of the Court of Appeal decision Varriano v. Allstate . In Varriano, the Court of Appeal found that medical reasons are not required in conjunction with the termination of a specified benefit if a non-medical ground was the reason for the determination. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the reasoning in Varriano was applicable in this case. For the matter at hand, it is Bergstrom’s position that TD’s denial notice did not make any determination on entitlement, not that a non-medical reason for the denial had been provided. The Tribunal agreed with Bergstrom, and was “persuaded by his cited decisions, namely S.V. v Aviva Insurance Canada and Wu v Aviva, which found that the insurer is required to provide the reasons why it was denying the benefit. In the present matter, the respondent did not actually state that it was denying the benefit, but rather, clearly stated that it had not yet made the determination as to entitlement. In my view, the October 28, 2020 letter was not compliant with s. 36(4)(b) of the Schedule.”


 



The Tribunal then further found that TD’s subsequent letter dated December 17, 2021 was also non-compliant with s. 36(4)(b) of the Schedule. The Tribunal agreed with Bergstrom that a “medical and any other reason for the denial was not specified. Rather, the respondent simply stated that it was enclosing the s. 44 reports of its assessors and that “You are encouraged to review and discuss this report with your treating health practitioner”. No details as to the examiners’ findings were specified. I agree with the applicant that simply referencing a s. 44 report and suggesting that the applicant discuss it with his practitioner does not provide an unsophisticated party with an understanding as to why his claim was being denied, as specified in 16-003316/AABS v. Peel Mutual”.

Therefore, given that the respondent did not provide a s. 36(4) compliant notice, pursuant to s. 36(6) of the Schedule, NEBs are payable from October 23, 2020, to 104 weeks post-accident, being December 30, 2021.



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 5, 2025: No Criterion 8 CAT as Physical Pain the Limiting Factor

CAT

March 3, 2025: Cause of Shoulder Tear Degenerative or MVA Related?

MIG

February 26, 2025: NEB Payable to 104 Week Mark Due to Technical Breaches

NEB

February 24, 2025: Doctor Not Required to Provide Diagnosis

MIG

February 19, 2025: Court Sets Aside Tribunal S.32 Notice Decision

Breaking News, Div Court, Limitation Period

February 12, 2025: Post 104 IRB Despite Employment & No CAT As Only Two Marked Impairments

CAT, IRB

February 10, 2025: GP Evidence Preferred over IE Regarding Concussion

MIG

February 5, 2025: No Election Required Despite Endorsement of IRB & NEB

Procedure, SABS

January 27, 2025: CNR’s + Imaging Determinative of Complete Shoulder Tear

MIG

January 22, 2025: Court of Appeal Upholds Divisional Court Decision

Divisional Court, NEB, Reconsideration

January 20, 2025: GP’s Diagnosis of “Head Injury” Prevails

MIG

January 15, 2025: Tribunal Accepts Neither Expert in Awarding Pre But Not Post 104 IRB

IRB

January 13, 2025: A Brain Contusion is Not Enough for a Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

January 9, 2025: Court Awards $69K in Costs for Apparent Miscarriage of Justice

Divisional Court,Costs

January 6, 2025: Corroborative Evidence Not Necessarily Required in Psych Diagnoses

MIG

December 18, 2024: Applicant Successful in CAT Case Where Respondent’s Expert Unavailable

CAT

December 16, 2024: Applicants Lose on Flawed Interpretation of the Schedule

MIG

December 11, 2024: Court Sends Paraplegic Matter Back to Tribunal re “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court, Reconsiderations

December 9, 2024: Pre-Existing Conditions MIG Escapes?

MIG

December 4, 2024: Court Remits $770K Award Worthy Matter Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

December 2, 2024: GP Questionnaire Does Not Trigger MIG Escape on Pre Existing

MIG

November 27, 2024: Court Remits $200K Award Worthy Matters Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

November 25, 2024: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis

MIG

November 20, 2024: IE Not Reasonable or Necessary – No to CAT & IRB

CAT, IRB, Procedure

November 18, 2024: No Evidence Pre-Existing Conditions Prevent MMR

MIG

November 13, 2024: Applicant’s Explanation for Delayed Application Found Reasonable

Procedure

November 11, 2024: GP Concussion Diagnosis Accepted as Legitimate

MIG

November 6, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT

November 4, 2024: Submissions Do Not = Evidence

MIG

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