COVID-19 UPDATE  

Caregiver not considered professional in health industry for attendant care benefits.

March 07, 2015, Kitchener, Ontario

Posted by: Robert Deutschmann, Personal Injury Lawyer

Heard Before: Adjudicator Alec Fadel

Date of Decision: October 31, 2014

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

Jeremy Josey, was involved in a car accident on December 11, 2011. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Primmum Insurance Co.  A dispute arose concerning his entitlement an attendant care benefit, and after failing to resolve their dispute through mediation Mr. Josey applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

 

The issues in this hearing are:

 

  1. Is Mr. Josey entitled to attendant care benefits in the total amount of $15,795.00?

 

Result:

 

  1. Mr. Josey is not entitled to the attendant care benefits claimed.

 

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

 

The parties agree that Mr. Josey required attendant care as a result of injuries sustained in the car accident. However, Mr. Josey received attendant care services from his spouse, Ms. Ladd, and Primmum denied entitlement to an attendant care benefit given that Ms. Ladd did not sustain an economic loss. Mr. Josey claims that since Ms. Ladd was a full time caregiver to their three children before the accident, she was a person who provided care in the course of her “employment, occupation or profession” and he was therefore entitled to the attendant care benefit without needing to prove economic loss. Mr. Josey claims that the attendant care expense was “incurred” as his spouse was a full-time caregiver for their three children before the accident and as a result falls into the class of person described under s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A).  She was not a trained professional in the healthcare industry.

 

In the amendments to the 2010 Schedule, the Legislature set a new definition for the word “incurred” in relation to attendant care and other benefits. That definition is found at s. 3(7)(e), and states that an expense is not incurred unless,

 

  1. the insured person has received the goods or services to which the expense relates

  2. the insured person has paid the expense, has promised to pay the expense or is otherwise legally obligated to pay the expense, and

  3. the person who provided the goods or services,

  4. did so in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily have been engaged, but for the accident, or

  5. sustained an economic loss as a result of providing the goods or services to the insured person

 

Primmum argued that Ms. Ladd’s pre-accident activities cannot be described as “employment, occupation or profession” and therefore (A) does not apply. It argues that for Mr. Josey to show that the attendant care was incurred, he must prove that Ms. Ladd sustained an economic loss as set out in s. 3(7)(e)(iii) (B).

 

Mr. Josey noted that prior to the changes to the Schedule on September 1, 2010, a family member was entitled to be paid for attendant care services provided to the insured person.  Therefore, the Insurance Act should be construed broadly in accordance with the principle of contra proferentem in order to avoid an unfair result from a narrow interpretation of the new legislation.

 

The 2010 Schedule signifies a significant shift in how attendant care benefits are payable in comparison to the previous version. Prior to the 2010 Schedule, attendant care benefits were required to be “incurred” but did not require the use of professional caregivers or proof of economic loss. Evolving case law eventually relaxed the “incurred” requirement such that the benefit was payable if the services were found to be reasonable and necessary. The 2010 Schedule does not define the key terms “employment,” “occupation” and “profession”, but includes a definition for “incurred” that would require a non-professional attendant care provider to show they have sustained an economic loss as a result of providing attendant care services to the insured.

 

The Arbitrator found that a comparison of dictionary definitions by Primmum and Mr. Josey was of limited value, deciding it was most important to determine the context of the section, interpreted with all the amendments that took place in 2010. He found that the 2010 Schedule showed a distinct and deliberate shift in the determination of entitlement to attendant care benefits, excluding family members from being reimbursed for attendant care services they provide to an insured without showing that an economic loss has been sustained.

 

The Arbitrator found that the wording of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) is clear and the intention was that the attendant care services be provided by a professional in the health care industry. He agreed with Primmum that consistent with this reasoning, the amendments did not contemplate that a stay-at-home parent would be considered someone providing attendant care services in the course of their employment, occupation or profession.

Posted under Accident Benefit News, Automobile Accident Benefits, Car Accidents, Chronic Pain, Concussion Syndrome, Fractures, Pain and Suffering

View All Posts

About Deutschmann Law

Deutschmann Law serves South-Western Ontario with offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brantford, Stratford and Ayr. The law practice of Robert Deutschmann focuses almost exclusively in personal injury and disability insurance matters. For more information, please visit www.deutschmannlaw.com or call us toll-free at 1-866-414-4878.

It is important that you review your accident benefit file with one of our experienced personal injury / car accident lawyers to ensure that you obtain access to all your benefits which include, but are limited to, things like physiotherapy, income replacement benefits, vocational retraining and home modifications.

Practice Areas

  1. Car accidents
  2. Motorcycle accidents
  3. Automobile accident benefits
  4. Catastrophic injury
  5. Brain or Head injury
  6. Paraplegia and Quadriplegia
  7. Spinal cord injury
  8. Drunk driving accidents
  9. Concussion syndrome
  10. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  11. Business Interruption Insurance
  12. Birth Trauma Injury
  1. Wrongful death
  2. Bicycle accidents
  3. Disability insurance claims
  4. Slip and fall injury
  5. Fractures or broken bone injury
  6. Pedestrian accidents
  7. Chronic pain
  8. Truck accidents
  9. Amputation and disfigurement
  10. Fibromyalgia
  11. Nursing Home Fatality Claims

Personal Injury Blog

Aug 04, 2020
Post-Concussion Treatment is Extremely Important in Suicide Prevention
Jul 30, 2020
Being the loved one or care giver of someone with TBI can be very challenging
Jul 28, 2020
Children who suffer concussions are susceptible to behavioral and emotional symptoms
Jul 23, 2020
Long-Term Care Homes and Hospitals Relax Visitor Restrictions
Jul 21, 2020
E-bike Popularity Continues to Grow – Remember They are Subject to Regulation
Jul 18, 2020
Al Fresco Dining Here to Stay, but Risk Needs to Be Managed

More Personal Injury Articles » 
Review our services

Connect with us

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Youtube Google