Print

 

 Volume. 7 Issue. 44 – December 6, 2023


This week a CAT Determination on 2010 MVA. The Tribunal was struck by the disparate experiential background of the competing experts, ultimately finding that the expert for the insurer did not appear to provide an assessment proportional to the complexity of a case regarding CAT determination.



Training 25th Anniversary Special!

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Winter Virtual Training Sessions. In celebration of inHEALTH’s 25th year receive 25% off all courses until December 31, 2023. 

  • BI Fundamentals: January 29th – February 2nd, 2024
  • SABS Expedited: February 26th – March 1st, 2024

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

Course details & register here +



Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

Four Marked Impairments – Injured in a November 2010 MVA, the Applicant (S.B.), in 21-006832 v Certas, submitted an OCF-19, applying for a CAT determination in June 2020. Following the MVA, S.B. was diagnosed with whiplash and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). She had previously been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in February 2008 when she was completing her first university degree however she was in remission at the time of the accident. She took one month off from university and she deferred her midterms. In 2012, S.B. “applied and was accepted to law school in 2012 school under the Access Program due to her hardships. She started seeing a psychiatrist one month after starting law school. While in law school, she received accommodations such as a note taker, extra time between and during exams, a special room to write exams, opting out of presentations and paper extensions.”

Scholastic and Employment

S.B stated that she completed 100 applications for an articling position but did not get hired as an articling student and completed the law practice program instead, ultimately writing and passing the bar exam, with accommodations. She did not work for six months after she passed the bar exam, however she was eventually hired at a small family law firm in January 2017. She was given the ability to work remotely and she moved in with her mom because she needed her support. She moved out on her own in 2019, however ultimately wound down her law practice in March 2020, claiming it was due to her accident-related injuries.

Evidence of Treating Psychotherapist

S.B. ‘s treating psychotherapist, in an August 2016 report noted that “Six years after the accident, the applicant continues to experience a myriad of symptoms at a distressing level. In fact, the applicant’s symptoms at this time are more prevalent than they were in July 2011. She has a high degree of anxiety and multiple symptoms that are disabling to her quality of life… she has had academic success, and yet her anxiety and feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability feel insurmountable to her on a continuous basis”.

Applicant’s Expert

S.B.’s CAT assessor opined that S.B. suffered a marked level of impairment in all four aspects of functioning. The assessor specifically testified that “it is possible for someone who is suffering from either a major depressive episode or a persistent depressive disorder to be able to complete full-time undergraduate courses or a full-time professional program such as law school successfully.” Further, the assessor opined that “the accident occurred at a young developmental stage, in her early 20s, and therefore at a formative stage with respect to her personality, social, romantic, and career development. He opined that the accident has interfered with her capacity for normal development, including her career, and particularly the development of normal romantic relationships.”

Respondent’s Expert

In contrast, the expert for Certas opined that S.B. suffered moderate impairments in all four areas of functioning. In support of this finding, Certas’ expert submitted that “she has a high level of functioning, and she has never been able to deal with stress since 2006…she did not receive any accommodation to complete her LSAT and obtained employment after law school… She travelled internationally for 2 to 4 weeks since her accident and the mere fact that she travelled cannot be minimized.” In addition, it was contended that she “diminished the fact that she has major accomplishments that should not be ignored… she was able to attend the 7-day hearing during usual business hours and her claims are not supported and are not credible.” The assessor also suggested that the divorce of her parents in her childhood is a vital consideration regarding potential predisposing factors related to the currently observed symptom profile”. The Tribunal found that “it was not entirely clear to me what (Certas’ expert) meant though I suspect he is suggesting the applicant’s parent’s divorce predisposed her to experiencing depression in her life.”

Preference for Applicant’s Expert

Ultimately, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Applicant’s expert, placing little weight on the opinions of Certas’ expert, finding same not persuasive, with no “comment on how the applicant’s personal care varies significantly depending on her motivation, which I considered to be an important factor.” The Tribunal commented that Certas’ expert’s report “lacked thoroughness that one would expect from a CAT assessment and the report seemed to be rushed. His assessment of the applicant took 1 hour and 20 minutes and when queried, he said it took him 4 or 5 hours to complete his initial report. This amount of time spent completing this CAT report does not seem proportional to the complexity of the issue in dispute and required to analyze the four areas of functioning.”

Experts’ Disparate Experience

The Tribunal further noted that as part of his qualifications, Certas’ expert “stated that he attended a 3-day course in Las Vegas in 2016 through the American Board of Independent Medical Examiners that went through all the chapters of the Guides but that it was not specific to psychiatry. He completed an exam at the end of the conference and started conducting medical legal assessments in 2018. He could not recall how many CAT assessments he has completed as he has never counted them.” In contrast, the Applicant’s expert “has a Certification in Medicolegal Expertise (CMLE) and a Certification in Catastrophic Impairment Evaluation, Mental Behavioural (C-CAT (MB)) from the Canadian Society of Medical Evaluators. Dr. Suddaby testified that he has been doing CAT assessments for 20 years and has completed over 1,000 CAT reports.”

Marked Impairment All Four Domains of Functioning

Ultimately upon the evidence, the Tribunal found that S.B. suffered from a Class 4 marked impairment with respect to ADL, thereby satisfying the CAT definition. For the sake of completeness, the remaining three domains were considered, concluding that she indeed suffered from Class 4 marked impairments across all domains of functioning. The Tribunal agreed with S.B. that Certas’ psychiatric assessment “was superficial, focusing mainly on the fact that she finished law school to mean that she may have moderate impairments but not a marked impairment…seems to base his conclusions on his perceptions of law school and the legal profession without anything to support his conclusions.”

With respect “to social functioning, the applicant reported having very limited social interactions, she did not make any new friends since the accident. When it comes to concentration, pace, and persistence the evidence suggests that the applicant was not able to attend work or participate in work activities on a regular basis, she had trouble with her workday, trouble with decisions and winding down her practice took a long time. With respect to adaptation, (her expert) stated that the applicant’s inability to manage stress, along with the added burden of pain and PTSD affect her ability to manage stress.”



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

June 4, 2025: MIG Escape Justifies CAT Assessments

CAT, MIG

June 2, 2025: Late Onset (Two Years) Shoulder Pain Remains in MIG

MIG

May 28, 2025: CRA Records not Necessarily Determinative Absent Corroborating Documentation

IRB

May 26, 2025: Insomnia a Pre-Existing Condition

MIG

May 16, 2025: First Year of Self Employment Results in $Nil IRB Despite Demonstrated Earnings

IRB

May 12, 2025: Res Judicata Not Waived For New MIG Hearing

MIG

April 30, 2025: Tribunal Confirms Four Class 4 Marked Impairments

CAT

April 28, 2025: MIG Not Conceded Despite Approved CAT Assessments

MIG

April 23, 2025: Court Reverses Tribunal’s Unreasonable Adjournment Refusal

Adjournment, CAT, Divisional Court

April 21, 2025: MIG Escape on Fractured Tooth 15 Months Later

MIG

April 16, 2025: Deficient Notice Renders NEB Payable

NEB

April 14, 2025: MIG Valid Medical Reason

MIG

April 9, 2025: Bus Travelling Over Elevated Manhole Cover Satisfies “Collision”

Definition Accident

April 7, 2025: Four OCF 18’s Payable Despite MIG Hold

MIG

March 26, 2025: Post 104 IRB Ongoing for Non-CAT

CAT, IRB

March 24, 2025: 30% Award for Failure to Review CNRs Overturned on Reconsideration

MIG

March 19, 2025: Yes to CAT, No to Post 104 IRB

CAT, IRB

March 17, 2025: Imaging Report Alone Insufficient to Establish Causation

MIG

March 12, 2025: Tribunal Rules Again on Matter Referred Back by the Court

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

March 10, 2025: Res Judicata Waived on New Evidence

MIG

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