‘Generous’ accident benefits? | GTAMotorcycle.com

‘Generous’ accident benefits?

ABadjusterrider_5

Well-known member
Recent changes to the auto industry

In attempting to justify Ontario’s high and increasing car insurance premiums, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has trumpeted what it calls Ontario’s “generous” no fault accident benefits.
We’re told our benefits, even with last year’s drastic reductions, continue to be “the most generous accident benefits coverage in Canada.”
Is that so? Consider that the vast majority of claims fall under what are called the minor injury guidelines.
Consider that the entitlement to medical and rehabilitation services for minor injuries is capped at $3,500.
Consider that the $3,500 includes the cost of assessments, examinations and reports. Does that sound very generous?
A minor injury includes any one or more of such things as sprains, strains, whiplash associate disorder, contusions, abrasions, lacerations, partial joint dislocation and any medical condition that occurs as a consequence of these injuries.
Now consider how quickly your $3,500 can be eaten up with an assessment, an examination or report, followed by physiotherapy two or three times a week.
Now tell me how generous our accident benefits are.
Throw in some sessions to deal with a psychological injury and see how far the $3,500 takes you.
Rather than being the most generous, Ontario has the lowest minor injury benefits in the country.
To be sure, if the injury goes beyond the definition of “minor,” or if there’s “compelling evidence” a pre-existing condition will prevent “maximal recovery,” then the accident benefit increases to $50,000.
So, surely that’s the most generous in the country?
Nope. Sorry. It isn’t. Worse, guess who gets to make the determination of whether an injury qualifies as minor or non-minor, or whether there’s compelling evidence.
It’s your doctor, right?
Nope, it’s the insurance company’s appointed adjuster.
Wait a minute, you ask, when did adjusters get their medical licences?
Believe it or not, car insurance adjusters have the power to categorize an injury as being minor or non-minor.
They have the power to disagree with the injured person’s own doctor and override the diagnosis and prognosis of medical professionals, without even having to seek out a supporting medical opinion to justify the denial.
According to psychologist Andrew Shaul — he’s treated accident victims for about 15 years — some adjusters will seek out a second opinion, but these second opinions are rife with financial conflicts of interest.
Any expert retained to provide a second opinion knows that if he doesn’t support the adjuster, he’ll likely lose the adjuster’s business.
If you don’t like what the adjuster or his expert has decreed, you can seek mediation and arbitration via the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, an agency of the Ministry of Finance that regulates insurance companies in Ontario.
The catch is you may have to undergo waiting periods of two to three years before you receive a decision.
Dr. Shaul has seen marriage break-ups, homes having to be sold and accident victims resorting to drug or alcohol abuse following mistreatment by insurance companies and their adjusters.
He says in many cases, accident victims suffer more trauma after an accident, due to the actions of the insurance companies, adjusters and their examiners, as opposed to the accident itself.
Dr. Shaul concedes insurers must deal with fraudulent billing practices but believes that pales in comparison to the problems caused by insurers’ improper denial of insured services.
Properly interpreted and administered, the minor injury guidelines make sense, although I don’t understand the justification for the artificially low limit of $3,500.
Moreover, we can’t leave the job of making medical determinations to adjusters, or even their financially conflicted “experts.”
 
But for minor injuries such as bumps, bruises, cuts and sprains, why would it cost $3000 + ? Why would you need assessments done in the first place, or rehab for these types of injuries? I've done worse to myself around the house and haven't had to seek assessments or treatment for it.
 
But for minor injuries such as bumps, bruises, cuts and sprains, why would it cost $3000 + ? Why would you need assessments done in the first place, or rehab for these types of injuries? I've done worse to myself around the house and haven't had to seek assessments or treatment for it.

Assume that you do have a major injury though. Whats stopping the adjuster from claiming it as a minor?
 
The definitation of Minor injury is defined in the legislation to stop adjusters from pulling that stunt
 
The definitation of Minor injury is defined in the legislation to stop adjusters from pulling that stunt

yup. same with the "catastrophic" designation, but usueally it is an extreme battle to get that determination. some fight for years for proper benfits.
 
yup. same with the "catastrophic" designation, but usueally it is an extreme battle to get that determination. some fight for years for proper benfits.

To get a Cat determination takes awhile with lots of assessments and factors. I currently have 1 file heading that direction. They recently changed the test of disability with the changes that came in Sept 1, 2010
 
What is the "test" for catastrophic again? Last I read, it was either both arms or both legs. An arm and leg didn't qualify, despite the limitations having both an arm and leg injured would impose on a person's ADL's.

Personally, I think the MIG's are a good idea, but I've already heard of some horror stories. One AB adjuster flippantly categorized a post-operative muscle laceration repair as "minor" because, and I quote: "it only involved a cut". The person is severely debilitated and forced to wait to have an IME conducted. Any sane orthopedic surgeon would obviously approve the OCF-18, but it is ridiculous that the adjuster is going down this route, despite repeated correspondence from the doctor and physical therapist.

What you've posted sheds some light on this fiasco. Someone needs to stop this train wreck from happening.

AB adjusters should NOT be making medical decisions.
 
AB adjusters should NOT be making medical decisions.

agreed, my knee was described by a ABA (who apparently had read and "understood" the report) as slightly unstable. but fine for general usage.
i had no acl or pcl. i had to go down stairs on my butt.
the lady was a kook.
 
agreed, my knee was described by a ABA (who apparently had read and "understood" the report) as slightly unstable. but fine for general usage.
i had no acl or pcl. i had to go down stairs on my butt.
the lady was a kook.

facepalm.

where do they get these people who are then given such control over our lives???
 
What is the "test" for catastrophic again? Last I read, it was either both arms or both legs. An arm and leg didn't qualify, despite the limitations having both an arm and leg injured would impose on a person's ADL's.

Personally, I think the MIG's are a good idea, but I've already heard of some horror stories. One AB adjuster flippantly categorized a post-operative muscle laceration repair as "minor" because, and I quote: "it only involved a cut". The person is severely debilitated and forced to wait to have an IME conducted. Any sane orthopedic surgeon would obviously approve the OCF-18, but it is ridiculous that the adjuster is going down this route, despite repeated correspondence from the doctor and physical therapist.

What you've posted sheds some light on this fiasco. Someone needs to stop this train wreck from happening.

AB adjusters should NOT be making medical decisions.

The changes were supposed to help curb insurance fraud but unfortunatly it had other affects they really didn't see coming. It took YEARS for these changes to come through. You were correct on your Cat interpretation
 
facepalm.

where do they get these people who are then given such control over our lives???

People with various backrounds, and some not at all. Some of my co-workers are Kin's, Chiros, physios, GP,
 
How is it frightening? I actually care about my clients who's cases I manage.

It reflects well on you; it is frightening that you appear to agree because that suggests there is some truth to the article.
 
It reflects well on you; it is frightening that you appear to agree because that suggests there is some truth to the article.

It is true, unfortunatly there are people who are now caught in the cross fire between fighting insurance fraud and clinics trying to bilk insurance companies for millions of dollars. All they want to do is get better and get over their pain. $3500 gets burned quickly when you talk about assessments, therapy and any assistive devices you might need.

I regret to inform you not to expect changes anytime soon. It took years to get these changes brought through to legislation. It's just now that we are begining to see the rammifactions of the changes since Sept 1, 2010.
 
$3500 gets burned quickly when you talk about assessments, therapy and any assistive devices you might need.

It was my understanding from the FSCO Superintendent's Bulletin 01/11 (iirc) that fees for assessments (such as IME's and not an initial assessment performed by a treating health care practitioner) were not to be taken out of the $3500 amount allowed for medical and rehabilitation treatment expenses.

Also, anyone with a minor injury would not require an expensive brace. Most braces used to treat minor injuries cost in the sub $100 range and it would be difficult to imagine a situation where more than 1 or 2 such braces would be needed for minor injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.

keep in mind, according to the MIG, a minor injury is defined as sprains (up to partial but not complete ligament tears), strains (including partial but not complete muscle tears), subluxations (not complete joint dislocations), lacerations and contusions (cuts and bumps).

It does not include fractures, objective neurological impairments, concussions, dislocations, complete ligamentous tears (like an ACL rupture, separated shoulder, etc). Any such injury, or any injury requiring surgery or immobilization (eg. casting) would not fall under the MIG and would be subject to the $50,000 cap for treatment costs, which IMHO is very generous.

Actually, for minor injuries, $3500 for treatment actually does sound quite generous, given that most people manage quite well with the $500 to $750 EHCB coverage they have for most minor injuries.

IMHO, there is a huge problem of over-billing (and over-treating) in the industry when it comes to the treatment of relatively minor injuries sustained in motor-vehicle collisions.

To be fair, the $3500 cap for treatments is quite fair, for minor injuries PROVIDED that it is only applied to those who sustained truly minor injuries. Erroneous adjudicating/case management by mis-informed or under-educated accident-benefits adjusters is a whole other issue.
 
It was my understanding from the FSCO Superintendent's Bulletin 01/11 (iirc) that fees for assessments (such as IME's and not an initial assessment performed by a treating health care practitioner) were not to be taken out of the $3500 amount allowed for medical and rehabilitation treatment expenses.

Also, anyone with a minor injury would not require an expensive brace. Most braces used to treat minor injuries cost in the sub $100 range and it would be difficult to imagine a situation where more than 1 or 2 such braces would be needed for minor injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.

keep in mind, according to the MIG, a minor injury is defined as sprains (up to partial but not complete ligament tears), strains (including partial but not complete muscle tears), subluxations (not complete joint dislocations), lacerations and contusions (cuts and bumps).

It does not include fractures, objective neurological impairments, concussions, dislocations, complete ligamentous tears (like an ACL rupture, separated shoulder, etc). Any such injury, or any injury requiring surgery or immobilization (eg. casting) would not fall under the MIG and would be subject to the $50,000 cap for treatment costs, which IMHO is very generous.

Actually, for minor injuries, $3500 for treatment actually does sound quite generous, given that most people manage quite well with the $500 to $750 EHCB coverage they have for most minor injuries.

IMHO, there is a huge problem of over-billing (and over-treating) in the industry when it comes to the treatment of relatively minor injuries sustained in motor-vehicle collisions.

To be fair, the $3500 cap for treatments is quite fair, for minor injuries PROVIDED that it is only applied to those who sustained truly minor injuries. Erroneous adjudicating/case management by mis-informed or under-educated accident-benefits adjusters is a whole other issue.

Yes under the MIG IME's are not taken out of their $3500. The initial assessment by the treating health practioner is covered under the first block at $150.00

I was referring to people who request items like back braces for their chair @ home, work, car etc there is coverage for ancillary goods.

I am aware of what a minor injury is defined as. I agree that in the case of where you have $50,000 for coverage is very generous. However, if you consider the elderly who are injured (for arguements sake) as a pedestrain. They can take longer to heal and require longer courses of therapy.

There is a massive amount of over treating in the industry and they (the clinics) want the maxium amount of cash from your policy before kicking you to the curb.

I can only comment on my experience as an adjuster and the best practices for the companies I work for. I cannot comment on how other companies handle their files or the policies. I know as an adjuster when the changes came in; we were extensively trained on the new guidelines.
 

Back
Top Bottom