DAILY NEWS Jan 16, 2013 10:07 AM - 7 comments

Ontario appeal board upholds caution issued to IME in auto claim

TEXT SIZE bigger text smaller text
By: Greg Meckbach, Associate Editor
2013-01-16

The Ontario Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board recently confirmed a decision by a committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to caution an independent medical examiner who made what it called an "inadequate and inaccurate" report in an auto insurance claim on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Medical

Last Friday, the board published its decision, identifying the doctor only as K.I. and the claimant as L.K. Doctor K.I., an IME retained by State Farm, had been issued a caution by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of CPSO, which ruled that she failed to comply with CPSO's policy on third-party reports.

That policy stipulates that when providing such a report, physicians must "take reasonable steps to ensure that they have obtained and reviewed all available clinical notes, records and opinions relating to the patient or examinee that could impact the findings of the report" and should ensure the information is accurate.

"The (IME) report indicates that the (claimant) was backing out of her driveway and was hit by an oncoming car, while the information before the Committee indicated that the (claimant) was hit by a car backing out of a driveway," the board noted in a report.. "The report omitted the fact that the police were called, the car was damaged to the extent that it had to be towed away and was written off, which the Committee wrote, 'speaks to the extent of the motor vehicle accident.'"

CPSO only names doctors who have been subject to disciplinary proceedings, and not those who have been issued cautions. The college is mandated by Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act to provide specific information on doctors, including restrictions on doctors' licences. However, CPSO has said the outcomes of complaints investigations that do not result in a referral to discipline are not, by law, public information.

The Ontario Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board, which has jurisdiction over the 28 regulated health professions in the province, has the power to confirm all or part of a decision of the CPSO Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee. It can assess the reasonableness of a decision or adequacy of an investigation, but it does not award money or damages, nor may it conduct its own investigation once a committee issues its decision. The board does not have the power to require that the committee make a finding of misconduct or incompetence against a doctor.

In the case of Dr. K.I., she was issued a caution by CPSO, which she appealed to the board, which ruled Jan. 11 that the caution was "reasonable."

"The Board notes that a caution is not a sanction. It is remedial in nature."

In background information published in its report, the appeal board noted that L.K. was in a collision Nov. 1, 2010, and that State Farm retained Dr. K.I. as an IME.

L.K.'s family doctor "felt that a referral for psychological services was indicated," according to the board's decision, but the IME did not. In her report, dated May 5, 2011, Dr. K.I. "referred only to a physiotherapy report written shortly after the accident and did not discuss any of the other 37 documents in the file, including the opinions of the (the claimant's) physician and other health professionals that an assessment was required," according to the board, which said the CPSO committee's ruling that the IME failed "to take reasonable steps to ensure that they have obtained and reviewed all available clinical notes records and opinions" was "reasonable."

Dr. K.I. also based her appeal on the contention that L.K. "should have raised her concerns with the (IME) report under the mediation and arbitration processes provided under the Insurance Act and that the College (of Physicians and Surgeons) is the wrong forum for the determination of her concerns."

Collision

The board noted that Dr. K.I.'s lawyer "submitted that having determined the (IME) was properly qualified, the Committee should defer to her expertise," adding: "if the College engages in the review of third party assessment undertaken by qualified health professionals, it will deter physicians from conducting assessments."

But the board ruled that the central issue before the CPSO committee was whether the doctor's conduct met professional standards.

Late November, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force Steering Committee recommended that the province require insurers to disclose publicly how they choose and assess the performance of businesses and professionals they recommend or refer consumers to see, such as IMEs. The task force also recommended that insurers be allowed to collect a cancellation fee of $500 for claimants who fail to attend a scheduled appointment after agreeing to do so, if they fail to provide "adequate notice" or a "reasonable explanation."



Horizontal ruler

Reader Comments

Most recent firstOldest first

Rhona

In many ways Kyle's not wrong. The problem is that most of these claimants are real people whose lives are being trashed. Not just by an auto accident but then a second time by the poor quality IME. By a medical opinion that isn't a tool to get better but rather a tool used by insurers to disqualify their claim. The claimants are the ones paying the high price, the other stakeholders are the 'money-makers'. That's how we got here - inaction and apathy on the part of all the stakeholders who stand to profit if this system remains unchanged. The Task Force knew all of this and had 16 months to consider what to do. They essentially have done nothing to protect legitimate claimants in their final report - they knew the College policy on disclosure and how it puts people at risk - and only now that the story of the flawed IMEs and the College's lack of transparency is hitting the main stream press, now it's important. The Task Force had an obvious inability to see that their own FSCO Arbitrators, in decisions available to them on the FSCO web-site, were commenting on the poor quality of the reports they were reviewing as evidence. And what did the Task Force tell FAIR and Ontario's consumers when presented with evidence of inadequate and inaccurate IMEs? That their evidence was 'anecdotal'. Not even close to the truth - consumers are at risk when they attend an IME, oversight of the assessors can't be relied on, and chances are pretty good that the report will be of absolutely no use except to disqualify your claim. Get in line at FSCO. Take a number.

Posted January 17, 2013 05:00 PM


Kyle

If doctors performing IMEs were not constantly bombarded by highly questionable claims of people exaggerating their symptoms for financial gain, perhaps they would be more careful or capable of distinguishing between true impairments and resolved/imagined injuries.

Claimant generated assessments, usually from medical professionals (sometimes not even) employed by sketchy clinics are equally unbalanced, biased and blind.

I blame the personal injury bar for pretending the proliferation of shitty files amount to compensable claims.

Lets face it, when it comes to personal injury files, the Hippocratic Oath is an after thought at best, regardless of which side you are on. It has become nothing more than a model for the redistribution of wealth - from consumers of insurance to insurance companies, lawyers, doctors and eventually claimants.

Posted January 17, 2013 12:20 PM


Geralyn McLeod

"The (IME) report indicates that the (claimant) was backing out of her driveway and was hit by an oncoming car, while the information before the Committee indicated that the (claimant) was hit by a car backing out of a driveway," the board noted in a report.. "The report omitted the fact that the police were called, the car was damaged to the extent that it had to be towed away and was written off, which the Committee wrote, 'speaks to the extent of the motor vehicle accident.'"

I worked as an editor for an IME company reviewing IME reports and I remember when I used to read reports about vehicles being a total loss I automatically assumed the claimant was in a serious motor vehicle accident. Since then I have worked as a Property Damage Claims Adjuster and now have a different understanding of what a total loss vehicle is. Yes, vehicles can be a total loss because of the severity of the damage of the vehicle. However vehicles can also be a total loss because the vehicle is an older model with minor damage and the cost to fix the vehicle is more than the value of the vehicle and hence it is written off by the insurance company.

It is easy to blame IME reports for being biased but so are Insured Examinations reports. I do not necessarily blame the doctors/assessors completing the reports. Every adjuster has to do their due diligence when reading a report. Just because a report has all the documents listed on it does not necessary mean the doctor/assessor has read all the documents. It just makes the report sound good from a legal standpoint.

Posted January 17, 2013 09:13 AM


Viivi

The concept of "self-regulation" under the RHPA requires the assessor to self-evaluate to decide if they are competent or not in respect of professional practices, including third-party assessments. Greater accountability on the part of so-called "self-regulated" professionals will benefit the system. And if greater engagement of health regulatory colleges discourages some assessors from participating, it will be a good thing. Hopefully qualified assessors, who have the courage to offer unbiased opinions, will remain and hopefully lawyers and insurers will find the courage to hire unbiased assessors. With unbiased assessments (plaintiff and defense) there would be fewer disputes and the system would rely on fewer assessments and require fewer assessors. An Australian state Attorney General once said: "one important basis upon which any compensation is determined is, of course, the medical report. Trial judges have remarked ...that in some cases the differences between medico-legal reports tendered by the parties are so great as to cast doubt as to whether they are related to the same person". Sadly, this is also true in Ontario.

Posted January 17, 2013 09:04 AM


harry

One possible solution to all the controversy concerning IME medical examiners could be resolved by providing all claimants and / or their legal representatives the cv of the medical practitioner who will be examining the claimant. This document should list all reprimands or convictions by a governing college or government agency. The educational achievements and medical achievements of the practitioner should be provided. The document should also disclose what percentage of the examiner's income is derived from conducting medical assessments versus actually practicing medicine. This information is easily obtainable by the examiner comparing his OHIP billings to other income derived from conducting IME examinations. There should also be references to all trials and FSCO arbitrations that the practitioner has been involved in. That history could then be referenced at Canli by the legal representative and / or the claimant.


Posted January 17, 2013 05:44 AM


FirstPrevNextLast
Horizontal Ruler

Post A Comment

Disclaimer
Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that Canadian Underwriter has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published and those that are published will not be edited. However, all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.

Your Name (this will appear with your post) *

Email Address (will not be published) *

Comments *



* mandatory fields