Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 28 – July 20, 2022



This week’s edition considers a case wherein the Applicant sought a CAT determination as a result of his injuries suffered in a January 2016 accident, in context of his mother having already been rendered CAT as a result of her psychological reaction to his injuries. Ultimately, the Applicant, having fully consumed the available non-CAT limits was not found to be CAT, although he was confirmed as suffering from a complete inability to carry on a normal life, therefore was entitled to NEB to date and ongoing.



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!



Despite “Complete Inability” Ongoing, Applicant Not CAT

Not CAT but NEB Ongoing – Injured in a January 2016 accident, the Applicant, K.B., in 20-007082 v Unica, sought a CAT determination and entitlement to a number of benefits, including NEB at the rate of $320/week from May 29, 2019 to date and ongoing. K.B.’s medical history was notable in that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, which causes impaired language and communication skills as well as repetitive or restrictive thinking and behaviour.

In the subject accident, it was agreed that K.B. had sustained significant permanent impairments, such that the non-CAT $50,000 limits had been exhausted by year end 2017. Of further note, K.B.’s mother, who had a pre-existing psychiatric history was rendered a CAT given that her condition had deteriorated significantly as a result of K.B.’s accident and injuries.

Unica’s CAT assessors found K.B. to have sustained a 44% Whole person Impairment (WPI), however the parties disagreed as to whether K.B. had sustained a psychological impairment that would result in a WPI of 55%.

K.B.’s assessor opined that K.B. had sustained marked impairments in the domains of activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation. K.B. was described by the assessor as leading “a life that shields and isolates him from being able to adapt to a normal life.” The assessor further noted that the pre-existing diagnoses provided a “unique challenge”, as K.B. could not give an account of his history the way an individual unaffected by Asperger’s could. Nonetheless, there was said to have been “a consistent pattern of reporting, which revealed that the pre-accident reports of functioning were different from post-accident functioning.”

Conversely, Unica’s assessor, who had assessed K.B. on two occasions, found that “K.B. did not have a diagnosable psychological impairment and rated him with having a Class 1 or no impairment in each of the four domains of functioning.”

The Tribunal preferred the report of Unica’s expert over that of K.B.’s for a number of reasons. Amongst them being K.B’s expert having failed to provide a persuasive explanation for the purported change in K.B.’s condition, finding that he “essentially concludes that K.B. meets the definition of CAT based on his deterioration and self-isolating behaviour.”

Further, “despite the claims that K.B. had difficulty communicating due to his Asperger’s, I found him to be a communicative, responsive and credible witness as he was able to answer all questions about his pre-existing and post-accident well-being with little to no difficulty.” It was also noted that the assessor mainly relied upon a companion OT report, that “was not a completely accurate report.” Said report was “undermined” as there was no access to pre-accident records that confirmed the already existing need for queuing, nor the school records that confirmed the Asperger’s related limitations.

While K.B.’s expert opined there to be a 40% WPI based upon the overall “marked” impairment level, K.B. had failed to produce any evidence to what a WPI score would be for mild or moderate impairments. The Tribunal noted there would need to be a 19% WPI in this realm to attain an overall WPI of 55%. Even were there to be a finding of “moderate” there was no evidence to assist in determining if this would result in the requisite 19%.

It was also noted the K.B,’s original psychological assessor had also concluded there to be no diagnosable psychological impairment, in line with Unica’s assessor. It was suggested as “unclear” why K.B. did not return to the original assessor, who would have been in the best position to opine regarding the alleged deterioration in K.B.’s condition. Ultimately the evidence was found persuasive in establishing that the psychological symptoms fell short of a CAT impairment.

However, K.B. was found to be entitled to NEB to date and ongoing, as he had demonstrated that he was significantly limited from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities. He testified that prior to the accident he rode his bike everywhere, every day, sometimes for several hours, however was now limited to 30-60 minutes occasionally per week. This “substantial reduction in his ability to engage in one of his favourite pastimes to be indicative of a complete inability to carry on what was previously part of his ‘normal life’.” As well, he had lost the desire to return to school, and given his reduced mobility had not connected socially with anyone outside of his immediate family. The accident was said to have “further reduced his level of comfortability and physical ability to engage in many of his pre-accident social interactions.” Therefore, based upon his physical injuries, K.B. had met the onus of establishing a “complete inability”.



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