|
WTF - Ontario Court Rulings
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | In Belair Insurance v. McMichael, [2007] O.J. No. 1972, the Divisional Court upheld a ruling that the accident benefits applicant David McMichael was catastrophically impaired and that he was entitled to 24 hour a day, 7 day a week attendant care for supervision so that he would not use crack cocaine.
David McMichael was involved in an accident on June 14, 1998. He was in the backseat of a taxicab and was thrown from the vehicle. He fractured his skull, his femur, his ribs and one of his vertebrae.
After the accident, Mr. McMichael developed a crack cocaine addiction. More than two years after the accident, he applied for attendant care benefits. An occupational therapist determined that he needed 24 hour a day, 7 days a week attendant care to prevent him from using crack. Mr. McMichael went to a CAT DAC Assessment. The DAC Panel concluded that he was not catastrophically injured. The insurer relied on the CAT DAC Assessment and refused the attendant care benefits.
Before the accident, Mr. McMichael was a recreational user of cocaine. He did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for addiction because there was no evidence that his use of cocaine ever interfered with his day-to-day life. Arbitrator Muir found that Mr. McMichael’s impairments were all caused by the car accident.
|
Basically, this means the insurance company has to pay this guy $6,000.00 a month upto a limit of $1,000,000.00 in total to have someone stay with him 24 hours a day and make sure he doesn't smoke crack. Even if he doesn't have anyone stay with him the insurance company still has to pay him. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Basically, this means the insurance company has to pay this guy $6,000.00 a month upto a limit of $1,000,000.00 in total to have someone stay with him 24 hours a day and make sure he doesn't smoke crack. Even if he doesn't have anyone stay with him the insurance company still has to pay him. |
Some girl in Regina brought about a tort claim against her former meth dealer and won.
Crazytown! |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Some girl in Regina brought about a tort claim against her former meth dealer and won.
Crazytown! |
I can actually see more merit in that.....but in this case the guy did crack before the accident but the courts basically ruled that due to the accident it caused him to become addicted to crack.
I wish I could get someone to pay me to have someone stay with me 24 hours a day to make sure I don't eat fast food. |
|
|
| eRRaTiK |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I wish I could get someone to pay me to have someone stay with me 24 hours a day to make sure I don't eat fast food. |
well you could always pay a hooker to keep you from doing that :D |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I'm a little confued as to how on earth crack addiction can be causually linked to an automobile accident. The collision didn't cause him to be a crack addict, his decision to smoke crack did. |
|
|
| Orko |
| With the amount of cases the insurance companies are able to fight off, I am surprised they lost. They are so good at screwing people out of money, how did this happen? |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
but in this case the guy did crack before the accident but the courts basically ruled that due to the accident it caused him to become addicted to crack. |
it says he was a "recreational user of cocaine" before the accident. maybe the courts grade cocaine and crack cocaine on different levels... which in fact, they are. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
With the amount of cases the insurance companies are able to fight off, I am surprised they lost. They are so good at screwing people out of money, how did this happen? |
You, clearly, don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies rarely succeed in denying claims even when there's a clear breach of the policy. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
it says he was a "recreational user of cocaine" before the accident. maybe the courts grade cocaine and crack cocaine on different levels... which in fact, they are. |
either way, how does a car accident directly result in someone becoming a crack addict? |
|
|
| UmmiE |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
either way, how does a car accident directly result in someone becoming a crack addict? |
He fractured his skull, his femur, his ribs and one of his vertebrae.
Brain leakage maybe
:conf: |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
lol what a douche |
|
|
| Swamper |
| Hmm... reading this makes me wonder how many ppl EVER wear a seatbelt in a cab. |
|
|
|
|
