Trial lawyers and rehab groups speak out against recommended catastrophic impairment definition

Ted Bergeron

No Annie. This doesn't mean that lawyers and assessment centres will make more money. It means that we all should drive a little slower and stop texting behind the wheel because no one can afford to be injured in an accident. Brokers are not pushing optional coverages and the basic package doesn't take care of our needs. It means that people who get hurt will need to manage their pain, try desperately to feed their kids with no money coming in the door and sit patiently for 36 months or so while people like me try hard to get people like you to treat them fairly.

Posted June 27, 2012 08:33 AM

Brian

RE: "$50,000 limits for med and rehab are a joke."

How does one reconcile this with all the happy horse manure fed to the public during the legislative run-up to those pro-insurer benefit cutbacks. I saw more than one newpaper column quoting senior IBC lobbyists and insurer executives stating with smug certainty that the basic coverage is an excellent package - one the will meet the needs of all Ontarians (or some such horse manure) I'm sure you can do a quick google search and find a plethora of such assurances - start with the Toronto Star. So how did we get from that - to the basic package being a "joke". So much so that now its time for all the same lobbyists to tell McGuinty that he needs to legislate mandatory buy-ups because of the absurdly low and joku=ingly inadequate basic benefits. Buy hey - nobody will ever notice this huge self-contradiction. After all, whose noticed that since 1992 you folks keep saying fraud is skyrocketing - but you keep forgetting to adjust your $1.3 billion per year fraud loss figure upward so as to keep pace with your unsustaniated, wild-eyed speculation.

Posted June 13, 2012 04:59 PM

Nick

It is unfortunate that some potentially catastrophically impaired insured’s are not able to access the benefits they need – but how large is this particular population? And if the IBC is correct that this means the increase in CAT Apps is a bi-product an increase of claimant’s applying under the 55% category. I do not pretend to be a doctor at my job and I certainly don’t pretend to be a specialist versed in the AMA guidelines. Does the OTLA and ACMRP believe that the 55% category could not currently be abused? I am not arguing that 55% impairment (combined with psych dysfunction) cannot exist, but shouldn’t the government take into account the obvious benefit for a tort claim or AB settlement of having a claimant qualify under this category? I am certain the first applications for psychological rehabilitation for MVA’s not involving hospitalization were laughed at – until insurers realized that a vulnerable segment of the population wasn’t getting the help they needed and/or began loosing at FSCO or in the courts. But don’t AB adjusters, (and lawyers) not see psychological dysfunction on every single file – no matter how mundane and low speed the collision? Insurers simply have anxiety that flood gates will open in the same way that they have for soft-tissue injury claims.

Posted June 13, 2012 02:33 PM

Mike O'Grady

Buying $1 million up from the current limit of $50,000 should be mandatory. $50,000 limits for med and rehab are a joke. If any product qulaified for negatrive billing option, this should be one. Let the brokers and agents talk to insureds' if they want to delete the coverage, vs selling it to them.

The insurance industry did this to try and fix a problem. Instead they are leaving isnureds high and dry.

A suggestion is to licence the clinics........ plus so many insurers just want to say no to an accident victim who really needs help.

A good lawyer is mandatory in order to balance out the insurers' position when it gets down to either paying a valid claim or not.

Posted June 13, 2012 11:29 AM

Annie

Oh no, does this mean that lawyers and assessment centers won't make as much money? What a shame...

Posted June 13, 2012 10:05 AM