Process would be more equitable if claimants only had to prove necessity of treatment
This article was produced by Canadian Lawyer in partnership with Thomson Rogers Lawyers
By Julius Melnitzer | April 11, 2023
Ontario’s no-fault insurance scheme should do away with the distinction between catastrophic and non-CAT injuries, says Matt Sutton, a personal injury lawyer at Thomson Rogers in Toronto.
“There’s no need for the distinction because it makes the process long, complicated and expensive. It would work much better and more equitably if all claimants simply had to prove the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment course they propose. Failing that, costs should be awarded to plaintiffs who succeed in showing they have achieved the CAT designation, because they can incur as much as $50,000 in legal fees and $50,000 in experts fees to go through a hearing at the Licensing Appeal Tribunal (LAT).” MORE . . .
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.
RELATED STORIES BY AUTHOR
Bare Bones Briefs: OCA rules on limitation in unidentified motorist cases
Women awarded less for pain and suffering than men
How this personal injury lawyer dug deep for his client to overcome an obscure bureaucratic glitch
PainWorth raises $2.1 million, targets North American insurance market