150K+ Awarded on IRB & Tribunal Frustrates Access to Justice?
Two reconsiderations were highlighted in last week's complimentary LAT inFORMER. Get updated on the latest LAT decisions with access to case summaries through inHEALTH's LAT Compendium Service.https://t.co/n8K78ccTMX
A fibromyalgia diagnosis almost 3 years post accident was considered by the Tribunal. The Applicant couldn't overcome the gaps in medical record to establish a connection to her ongoing complaints. Why was the Applicant's expert’s opinion not accepted? https://t.co/OnWk6Ne3do
This International Women's Day we celebrate women's achievements! Be a part of a movement to take action for equality in communities, workplaces, and schools. Together we can #BreakTheBias
inHEALTH's SABS 1 training is back & now being offered virtually April 4-8, 2022!
Only a few seats left! Deadline to register is March 4th, 2022. Learn more & register now! https://t.co/N2zT7oAdTF
Justice Denied - At the halfway mark of year 6 of the #LAT the case disposition rates reflected a trend of concern for all stakeholders. This trend is largely driven by significant productivity decreases in the second quarter of 2021. Read More...
https://t.co/Y877o2rHWE
In #Breaking News the Division Court ruled that the #LAT failed to ensure procedural fairness in three separate determinations involving a pre-June 1 2016 CAT determination on a brain impairment. https://t.co/A4afl8Mzf7
The Tribunal released its decision while one of the key decisions relied on by both parties (18-010791 v Economical) is under judicial review. The Tribunal suggested that once the Divisional Court released its decision, the parties could seek Reconsideration with new submissions.
It is our pleasure to be a sponsor for this year's @CDLawyers Accident Benefits Fall Classic Program.
We look forward to hearing all of the speakers! #CDL#ABFallClassic
In this week's “CAT” Special Edition LAT inFORMER we discuss the Tribunals response to CAT determination issues. Read more > https://t.co/P9kqT8tJai
#LAT#AABS#CAT#Determination#PersonalInjury#AB
In this IRB quantum special LAT inFORMER, we review three cases that consider the following questions:
1. Is the insurer entitled to deduct EI Maternity and unclaimed employer top-up benefits?
2. Does IRB quantum factor into eligibility consideration? https://t.co/V4U0hHVjOz
In this MIG Monday, we report on 2 contrasting cases where there were concerns of psychological symptom magnification. Sign up to our newsletter to receive MIG Monday's every week. https://t.co/1FFKp1ErQk #MIG#Monday#LAT#AABS#PersonalInjury
inHEALTH is proud to be a leader in claims resolution - providing Auto Insurers, Adjusters, Defence, Plaintiff Counsel, Accounting and Medical Clinics with the most up to date relevant information.
Check out inHEALTH's newly improved website! https://t.co/0fUOM2hslk #AB#BI
Cases reported in this week’s LAT inFORMER involve limitation & the need to continually adjust, a causation matter, and the “26/52” employed test not being available for one deemed to be self-employed.
To read more login to inHEALTH's #LAT Compendium https://t.co/Rp4WeuOeOB
"Artificial intelligence is becoming ubiquitous." inHEALTH is continuously evolving with exciting growth through new services and updates to it's database. Sign-up for inHEALTH's LAT Compendium Service to experience outcome information first hand.
https://t.co/lvn0FCr9JG
In this MIG Monday we discuss 2 decisions where the Applicants were receiving treatment at the time of the accident to manage their pre-existing conditions. However, the evidence on the impact of same on the injuries led to 2 differing conclusions. #MIG https://t.co/V4U0hHVjOz
In this week's LAT inFORMER we look at an NEB case which considers which interpretation of the Tribunal is preferred regarding what constitutes a “completed” OCF-3.
Sign up or login to read more about this case. https://t.co/Rp4WeuOeOB #NEB#LAT#OCF3#AABS#inHEALTH
In this special edition of the LAT inFORMER, the Court affirms that s.38(11) does not include a requirement that expenses be reasonable or necessary. Rather, the wording of s.38(11) is mandatory and requires an insurer to pay. #LAT#AABS#SABS#inHEALTH
https://t.co/WhvleANJlS
This week's ‘Assessments’ edition of the #LAT inFORMER, considers again whether s.25 of the Schedule perhaps does not provide as much leeway as presumed in terms of allowing access to medical reports on the part of the insured person. Sign up to read more https://t.co/FDS9hnLsq0