On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Oatley, Vigmond Personal Injury Lawyers hosted a seminar at Georgian College in Barrie, Ontario to address significant regulatory changes that have been imposed on the rehabilitation sector since September 2010. The seminar provided practical strategies to assist health care professionals in adjusting to these changes and to equip them with the right tools and information.
The day began with introductions from Roger Oatley, partner at the firm, describing the work they have been doing and the concern that is felt all across the province regarding the effect the auto insurance changes will have on patients’/clients’ outcomes.
Most notably, the issues addressed during the seminar concerned SABS regulations, FSCO initiatives, and strategies for coping with the MIG. Robert M. Durante, partner at Oatley, Vigmond, provided effective tools for the audience, such as templates of documents health professionals can use to collect the assessment costs from insurance companies, as well as providing detailed instructions on how to direct complaints to FSCO.
Brian Cameron addressed the expert panel’s newly released suggestions on the catastrophic injury definition and he described their effect on the health care professional’s environment.
More details regarding this subject can be read here.
Psychologist Dr. Thomas Davidson, a frequent expert witness on motor vehicle accidents, spoke about the barriers to recovery in psychotherapy. He pointed out that psychological syndromes have physical symptoms and he described how the anxiety of case management process affects the recovery.
Another interesting topic of the day was the impact of social media on the outcomes of legal cases. Troy Lehman emphasized the overuse of social media hubs and of the Internet in general, reminding the audience that social media postings are unerasable with a permanent quality that can detrimental to the client’s case.
James Vigmond, partner at the firm, addressed the issues of testifying and being an expert witness in court. There is some hesitancy among health professionals in regard to this duty. In describing the role of an expert witness, Vigmond said, “Jurors like to hear from the horse’s mouth.” He explained how to provide credible and objective information on the patient’s progress, status and complaints, as well as on the types of treatment provided, the effect of the treatment and motivation, and even the engagement displayed by the patient.
The day concluded with an expert panel comprising of Dr. Thomas Davidson, psychotherapist, Nick Gurevich, chair of the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, Eric B. Grossman, an attorney at Hogan Willig law firm, and Robert Durante, partner at Oatley, Vigmond. The panel discussed changes in regulations and the catastrophic impairment expert panel decisions.
Dr. Davidson brought up the problem of psychological assessments not being included in the recommendations, since, he suspects, it is difficult to measure the outcomes. However, he said that the difficulty of measuring progress is not a valid reason for its exclusion.
Nick Gurevich addressed the fact that FSCO’s reaction to the overwhelming expenditures that insurance companies are experiencing was to reduce the resources available to injured people rather than target the cause, such as fraudulent activities on the part of a very few facilities.
Eric Grossman continued with that train of thought, saying that the $2,000 cap on assessments may in theory reduce the amount of expenditures, but it will prevent reasonable assessments from being conducted because the financial cap is too low, thus causing more damage – and higher costs – in the long run.
Grossman also pointed out that most of the problems experienced by insurance companies are coming from clinics owned by non-practitioners and dubious practitioners who are allowing their names to be used in conjunction with fraudulent activities. Geographically, most of these activities are taking place south of Highway 7 in the Greater Toronto Area. Eric accounted for his contact with three members of the Catastrophic Impairment Expert Panel: Arthur Ameis, M.D., Ronald Kaplan, Ph.D., C. Psych., and Michel Lacerte, M.D. Grossman emphasized the great amount of effort and detail that went into the decision-making process leading to the panel’s suggested changes. He pointed to the appendices of the report, and the fact that unless there was total consensus among panel members, the suggestions continued to be re-evaluated.
When addressing all the issues to be put forth, the catastrophic impairment expert panel constantly sought unanimity. With certain matters, such as the lack of effectiveness of the Glasgow Coma Scale, consensus was reached right away, while other issues had to be continuously re-evaluated on an hourly or daily basis.
The Coping with the Changes seminar brought together delegates from all over Ontario. As the day concluded, it was clear that participation from all sides of the industry spectrum will be required to overcome the current challenges faced by the sector.
