Posts Tagged ‘chronic pain’

CATASTROPHIC IMPAIRMENT FOR ALL!
February 2nd, 2012

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company confirmed that psychological impairments should be combined with physical impairments to determine whether a car accident victim has suffered a catastrophic impairment. 
This is an important decision for all victims of motor vehicle accidents in Ontario, who, according to current motor vehicle legislation generally fall into two categories:  those who receive minor injuries, and those who are catastrophically impaired.  Accident victims who meet the definition of catastrophic impairment are entitled to claim greater accident benefits, and for a longer period of time.

Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, Justice MacPherson, ruled that the proper interpretation of section 2(1.1.)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the “SABS”) is consistent with allowing the combination of both psychological and physical impairment scores to determine an injured person’s WPI score.  Referencing the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, which is explicitly designated as the frame of reference for the relevant sections of the SABS, Justice MacPherson writes:
 
In my view the trial judge erred by concluding that combining physical and psychiatric impairments “would contradict the express purpose of the Guides, which is to provide a system for evaluating impairments that is objective and standardized”.  With respect, this ignores the Guides’ parallel aim of assessing the total effect of a person’s impairments on his or her everyday activities.  An objective, standardized system of assessment is only useful to the extent that it can reflect persons’ actual levels of impairment.  To disregard the mental and behavioural consequences of a person’s injuries because they are too hard to measure would defeat the purpose of the Guides.

The Court determined that combining scores produces results that are consistent with the purposes of the SABS and that allowing combination promotes fairness and the objectives of the statutory scheme.

This is a positive outcome for all victims of motor vehicle accidents in Ontario as it means that people with severe psychological and physical impairments may get easier access to the medical benefits recommended by their doctors and hasten their recovery and improve their quality of life.

 


Pain Clinic Conference
November 21st, 2011

DSF was a proud Platinum Sponsor of Toronto Rehab Pain Conference 2011 which was held on November 18th at the Hyatt Regence Toronto on King. Pain Management across the Continuum: Bridging the Gap from Acute Care to Rehabilitation and into the Community was a main theme and our lawyers: George Frank, David Derfel and David Schell presented Workshop 3: Barriers and Challenges, Providing Chronic Pain: A Lawyer’s Perspective.



Thin Skulled Plaintiffs may be able to Collect on Chronic Pain
November 14th, 2011

When someone gets injured in an accident, any claim for damages must stem from injuries that resulted from the accident in question. In Heyward v. Young, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court case decided in 2011, the Plaintiff, who was injured after the defendant driver t-boned his car, suffered from severe migraine headaches, and an MRI of his head post-accident revealed residual scarring to the inferior frontal lobe. At trial, the Defendant produced evidence to support, on a balance of probabilities, the fact that the sustained brain injury had resulted from an unrelated assault on the Plaintiff 15 years prior to the accident.

The Plaintiff’s pre-existing susceptibility to brain injury, making him a “thin-skulled” plaintiff in legal jargon, removed the causation element required to prove that, but-for the motor vehicle accident, he would not have suffered the brain injury. However, the Plaintiff’s migraine headaches, which did materialize after the accident, and developed into long-term chronic pain syndrome, were recognized to be directly attributed to the accident in question. Despite the fact that a pre-existing condition may have exacerbated the chronic pain, the Plaintiff was still awarded a sizeable general damage award, as well as a modest future care award.