Monday, July 27, 2015
Social Security Tribunal appeal stacked against claimant
Via Facsimile 1-855-814-4117 Social Security Tribunal of Canada
RE: IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL GP-xx-xxx
Dear Social Security Tribunal:
I acknowledge receipt of a letter by xxx -IS Operations Manager, General Division Dated July 16, 2015 informing me that your are now “ready to proceed” with my Appeal.
I do not understand how you can be ready to proceed without fulfilling your obligation to provide me a copy of my previously requested file.
Until I am able to receive a complete copy of my file I am unable to proceed in defending myself and presenting the facts.
As you know my file represents the how, when, and why I have an appeal with you, and is the record of events for any future actions against the Social Security Tribunal in the event of the continuation of these unjust denials. Its all relevant. I wish to discuss with the Member assigned my file all relevant information regarding my file and my Appeal. So again, I kindly ask for an updated copy of my file.
Even if I am unsuccessful in my Appeal I still require everything that I sent to the Tribunal to be part of the record as it confirms and demonstrates the facts of my long journey through this preconceived nightmare designed to deny, humiliate and thoroughly frustrate legitimate victims that have already been threw enough interrogations from their insurance companies hired guns and wordhirelings. All orchestrated by the IBC and bad politicians that pray on the week, sick, and injured, for profit.
Doctors that don't stand up for legitimately injured patients are most to blame in this charade of politics and money makers. My 7 year Appeal process is just another example of an upside down world where the money doesn’t go to where its suppose to. Bad Doctors that don't properly investigate are at the core of the backlog problems at F.S.C.O, our courts, and the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
As Service Canada has used my blogging (about them) as an excuse not to pay my disability benefits attached you will find my latest blog entry advocating for the thousands of people waiting at your Tribunal because of bad decisions by disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional Service Canada employees.
As you know my faxes to you and my blog still asks for the Chairperson of the Social Security Tribunal xxx to answers numerous, unanswered, questions.
I have no acknowledgement that the Chair is getting my correspondences. Is she receiving anything? Should I resend?
Also, will I be permitted to audio/video record my appeal hearing?
Finally, attached you will find my completed “Hearing Information Form”. You will notice that I have not answered the witness question at this time. What are the rules for witnesses?
I submit that anyone that has correspondences, investigations, or relevant knowledge of this appeal makes them a witness to this Appeal. Furthermore, is there a limit to the number of witnesses?
With my injuries, no consumer protection, no consultation or mind reading skills I continue to have difficult understanding why this process is designed so difficult for a legitimately injured person. You should all be ashamed.
Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible in this regard.
Thanks to all those who help me write my letters and blog postings since 2007.
Cc: undisclosed
Source: http://survivingacollision.blogspot.ca/2015/07/social-security-tribunal-appeal-stacked.html
Showing posts with label auto insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auto insurance. Show all posts
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
CPP Disability take a number now serving appeal 200,000
What are the number of appeals backlogged at the Social Security Tribunal?
The following comment was made by Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform on the Toronto Sun site back in November of last year.
 |
In February of this year Minister Jason Kenney pledged to wipe out the Social Security Tribunal backlog of 11,000 by this summer.
The backlog was also discussed later in the house by Mr. Robert Aubin (NDP).
He said: "Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the chair of the Social Security Tribunal confirmed that there are significant delays in the processing of cases: 14,677 cases are languishing on her desk."
So what are the numbers now?
More importantly, how would you get rid of such a backlog of appeals...fairly?
The Tribunal Chair refuses to acknowledge or respond to my letters as an appeal applicant, or as an advocate for these disabled Canadians that have been waiting for years at the tribunal backlog.
Knowing that these disabled Canadians can't respond our government has reaped the $$$ in withholding these benefits. Appeals in the take-a-number-lineup because of bad decisions by Service Canada and their policy of delay, deny, wait for them to die.
In my case these benefits that my employers and I have paid into mandatorily since 1979.
http://survivingacollision.blogspot.ca/2015/01/delay-deny-wait-for-them-to-die-at-sst.html
http://survivingacollision.blogspot.ca/2015/05/where-do-victims-go-when-insurers-dont.html
And what of my appeal that was launched back in 2008?
Will it be fairly heard after my blogging about the Social Security Tribunal and advocating for the unknown thousands of Appellants?
What do I have to do to be heard and what will It take to at least acknowledge my correspondences by the Social Security Chair Ms. Brazeau.
Sincerely,
Mr. xxxx xxx
Surviving a Collision: http://survivingacollision.blogspot.ca/
Crash Survivor 2007.
Social Security Tribunal says more than 14,600 Canadians are now waiting for a hearing:
http://survivingacollision.blogspot.ca/2014/11/social-security-tribunal-says-more-than.html
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Car insurers and lawyers brawl in public
Two sides point to each other as reason for high insurance premiums. The truth is, they’re both responsible
By Alan Shanoff, Toronto Sun
The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) opened by claiming the public needs regulatory oversight of contingency fees charged by personal injury lawyers.
The IBC feels a change is necessary to protect consumers and allow the government to evaluate the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto insurance system.
The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) countered by releasing a study it commissioned concerning auto insurance premiums.
According to the study, prepared by two professors at York University’s Schulich School of Business, “consumers in Ontario may have overpaid for auto insurance by between $3 and $4 billion over the period 2001 to 2013.”
The OTLA urged an independent “thorough and truly transparent” review of auto insurance by Ontario’s Auditor General.
Reacting quickly, the IBC fired back through a press release, pointing the finger back at personal injury lawyers claiming, “lawyers’ fees are simply too high and have a significant impact on the cost of auto insurance.”
The IBC supported its conclusion by claiming some lawyers charge 40%, while others between 25% and 33% of any settlement or judgment.
I doubt many lawyers would dare charge a 40% contingency fee, although even a 25% to 33% fee may be too high in some cases.
But, the IBC forgot to mention clients don’t pay the entire contingency fee as a good part of the fee is paid by the insurance company.
To rub it in further, the IBC stated, “In 2013, lawyers received an estimated $500 million from injury claimants out of their insurance settlements for bodily injury claims. These are real dollars that never make it to the claimant. IBC will continue to fight for increased transparency so that consumers can actually see where their insurance dollars go.”
But I don’t think insurers want to open the transparency can of worms.
If they want to talk about “real dollars” that don’t make it to claimants, check out the vast sums paid by insurers for their so-called independent medical examinations (IMEs), used to belittle or deny claims.
According to the most recent Ontario Health Claims Database, insurance companies paid approximately $372 million for IMEs for accidents taking place in the last four years.
In some years, insurance companies forced almost half of all claimants to attend IMEs and in each year the average amount paid per assessed claimant for these exams exceeded the average amount paid per claimant for all medical and rehabilitation expenses.
Sending claimants for multiple and expensive assessments to pro-insurer experts is a major contributor to insurers’ costs and takes “real dollars” out of the pockets of claimants.
That’s not to say lawyers are free of blame.
There’s a long history of lawyers neglecting to act diligently to expose insurer experts who file partisan reports, sometimes outside their sphere of expertise, used by insurers to delay and deny claims.
As well, quality control at some law firms is substandard.
The FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform has recently posted an announcement stating, “ALERT – we are hearing about more and more cases where time limitations for filing have lapsed due to plaintiff’s legal representatives failing to meet limitation period deadlines.”
Then again, motor vehicle litigation and accident benefits claims are highly complex and insurance company tactics often lead to increased fees.
And if the insurance industry wants to point fingers at personal injury lawyers, perhaps they ought to make complete disclosure of the money they spend on defence lawyers and adjusters to deny, delay and defend claims.
Furthermore, how much do insurers pay to fund their massive public relations campaigns -- including political contributions to those in power -- which they effectively use to portray accident victims as opportunistic, malingering or just plain fraudulent?
It seems there is a lot of mud that can be thrown at each side in this messy debate.
But while the debate drags on, insurers continue to exact high premiums and lawyers receive handsome payments for their work.
And accident victims? They’re stuck in the middle.
Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/13/car-insurers-and-lawyers-brawl-in-public
Car crash victims deserve better deal
Ontario’s car insurance system seems to work well except for consumers who need it and accident victims who make legitimate claims under it.
After all, the insurance industry is making good money.
Lawyers are amply rewarded acting for plaintiffs and insurance firms.
Doctors earn significant sums preparing insurer-requested medical reports.
Treatment providers receive good compensation for treating the injured.
Premier Kathleen Wynne received generous financial support from the car insurance industry when she ran for the Liberal leadership.
The Liberal party receives significant campaign donations from it.
But here’s the problem. Two problems, actually.
The first is fraud by people trying to rip off insurance companies with phony claims. We agree it happens and it’s a serious problem.
But what we don’t understand is why the amount of fraud -- to hear it from the insurance companies -- never, ever, seems to decrease.
Fraud, we’re told, is the main reason auto insurance premiums in Ontario remain stubbornly high, no matter how many times the government cuts back benefits to all accident victims at the behest of the insurance industry, as it did again in its latest budget passed last week.
We also think there’s another kind of fraud in the insurance industry that needs to be addressed by government.
That fraud happens when people who have faithfully paid their auto insurance premiums year after year are hurt in serious accidents and, when they make legitimate claims for the benefits promised in their policies, are denied them.
It happens when car insurers fight against paying genuine claims from accident victims, falsely making them out to be the enemy and going to absurd lengths in and out of court to deny them the benefits to which they are entitled.
Last week, hundreds of demonstrators at Queen’s Park protested this kind of fraud as the Liberals passed yet another piece of legislation favoured by the insurance industry that will cut in half benefits for people who sustain catastrophic, life-changing injuries in car accidents.
Prior to the passage of the budget, Finance Minister Charles Sousa boasted, “Ontario is the most generous in Canada when it comes to providing coverage for auto insurance.”
Last week, Sun legal affairs analyst Alan Shanoff, demonstrated conclusively in his column how this statement was inaccurate.
In fact, Ontario doesn’t provide the most generous benefits for either catastrophic injuries or for so-called “minor” ones, which can include dislocation of joints, partial tears of tendons and ligaments and whiplash not exhibiting neurological symptoms.
As the FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform put it: “The budget does nothing to ensure that insurer claims management practices are fair and there has been no action (to deal with) ... the biased and corrupt insurer medical examination reports that are disqualifying innocent and legitimate accident victims.”
We agree. It’s time to end this type of insurance fraud, as well.
Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/06/car-crash-victims-deserve-better-deal
After all, the insurance industry is making good money.
Lawyers are amply rewarded acting for plaintiffs and insurance firms.
Doctors earn significant sums preparing insurer-requested medical reports.
Treatment providers receive good compensation for treating the injured.
Premier Kathleen Wynne received generous financial support from the car insurance industry when she ran for the Liberal leadership.
The Liberal party receives significant campaign donations from it.
But here’s the problem. Two problems, actually.
The first is fraud by people trying to rip off insurance companies with phony claims. We agree it happens and it’s a serious problem.
But what we don’t understand is why the amount of fraud -- to hear it from the insurance companies -- never, ever, seems to decrease.
Fraud, we’re told, is the main reason auto insurance premiums in Ontario remain stubbornly high, no matter how many times the government cuts back benefits to all accident victims at the behest of the insurance industry, as it did again in its latest budget passed last week.
We also think there’s another kind of fraud in the insurance industry that needs to be addressed by government.
That fraud happens when people who have faithfully paid their auto insurance premiums year after year are hurt in serious accidents and, when they make legitimate claims for the benefits promised in their policies, are denied them.
It happens when car insurers fight against paying genuine claims from accident victims, falsely making them out to be the enemy and going to absurd lengths in and out of court to deny them the benefits to which they are entitled.
Last week, hundreds of demonstrators at Queen’s Park protested this kind of fraud as the Liberals passed yet another piece of legislation favoured by the insurance industry that will cut in half benefits for people who sustain catastrophic, life-changing injuries in car accidents.
Prior to the passage of the budget, Finance Minister Charles Sousa boasted, “Ontario is the most generous in Canada when it comes to providing coverage for auto insurance.”
Last week, Sun legal affairs analyst Alan Shanoff, demonstrated conclusively in his column how this statement was inaccurate.
In fact, Ontario doesn’t provide the most generous benefits for either catastrophic injuries or for so-called “minor” ones, which can include dislocation of joints, partial tears of tendons and ligaments and whiplash not exhibiting neurological symptoms.
As the FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform put it: “The budget does nothing to ensure that insurer claims management practices are fair and there has been no action (to deal with) ... the biased and corrupt insurer medical examination reports that are disqualifying innocent and legitimate accident victims.”
We agree. It’s time to end this type of insurance fraud, as well.
Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/06/car-crash-victims-deserve-better-deal
Drastic Cuts to Accident Benefits Ahead
The provincial government is quietly pushing forward a bill that slashes the insurance coverage available for people injured in Ontario car accidents....
More / source: http://oatleyvigmond.com/drastic-cuts-to-accident-benefits-ahead/#.VXHpvlJqS1A
More / source: http://oatleyvigmond.com/drastic-cuts-to-accident-benefits-ahead/#.VXHpvlJqS1A
Ontario's 25-Year No-Fault Journey
Ontario's auto insurance system is unrecognizable, and it is time to stop tinkering. The concept of using an insurance system to provide a social safety net is flawed, perhaps requiring in its place a system where private insurance companies provide both third-party liability and physical damage coverage while a Crown corporation delivers accident benefits.....
More/ source: By: Willie Handler, Consultant, Willie Handler and Associates 2015-05-01
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/ontarios-25-year-no-fault-journey/1003649700/?type=Print%20Archives
Bad news for crash victims
Finance Minister Charles Sousa’s claim Ontario has the most generous auto insurance benefits is nonsense
The reductions are most significant for those suffering from catastrophic injuries.
Since 1996, these victims were entitled to reasonable and necessary medical and rehabilitation services up to $1 million, in addition to up to $1 million in attendant care benefits.
That combined coverage of $2 million will now be cut by 50% to a combined $1 million.
It’s puzzling why the government would want to cut back benefits to those who need it most, especially since only 1% of accident victims suffer catastrophic injuries.
Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa stated, “Ontario is the most generous in Canada when it comes to providing coverage for auto insurance.”
I guess he isn’t aware Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec provide medical rehabilitation benefits in excess of Ontario’s $1 million, when medically warranted, for any motor vehicle accident victim.
At the other end of the spectrum, dealing with so-called minor injuries suffered by approximately 80% of accident victims, Ontario’s “generous” limit for medically necessary treatment is $3,500, including the cost of assessments, examinations and reports.
No other province mandates a cap on minor injuries.
Don’t think these “minor” injuries are insignificant.
They include dislocation of joints, partial tears of tendons, ligaments and muscles, contusions, abrasions, lacerations and whiplash not exhibiting neurological symptoms.
For serious injuries — neither minor nor catastrophic — medical and rehabilitation benefits are capped at $50,000 in Ontario. That compares favourably to Nova Scotia, PEI, Nunavut and the NWT, which each have a limit of $25,000, and equals the limit in Alberta and New Brunswick.
But it falls short of the limits in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
So, the most generous benefits in Canada? Hardly.
The lowering of benefits for catastrophic injuries is only one of many prejudicial changes to auto insurance coverage announced in the budget.
There’s also enhanced barriers imposed on plaintiffs suing for negligence arising out of auto accidents.
Most people are unaware of two barriers on the right to sue for damages resulting from harm suffered in an at fault auto accident.
First, there is a threshold test that must be satisfied before anyone can succeed in winning a lawsuit.
This law, introduced in 1996 and made more stringent in 2003, bars successful lawsuits unless plaintiffs can establish they suffer “from permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.”
To meet this test, various stringent conditions must be satisfied.
The threshold often prevents injured people from recovering damages for serious injuries that fail to meet its definition.
Second, there is a deductible that applies only to lawsuits against negligent auto drivers. It was increased from $15,000 to $30,000 in 2003 and applies to damages for pain and suffering of $100,000 or less.
The budget would index the deductible to inflation as of 2003.
According to personal injury lawyer Darcy Merkur, that would impose a deductible of about $37,000 on damage awards of about $123,000 or less. As an example, a damage award of $100,000 would be reduced to $63,000!
Having both a threshold and a deductible is redundant and only benefits insurance companies.
And why would the government choose to index amounts that favour insurance companies, while not indexing amounts that favour accident victims?
I didn’t see any proposal to index the minor injury cap of $3,500 or the medical/rehab cap of $50,000.
As FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform says, “The budget does nothing to ensure that insurer claims management practices are fair and there has been no action (to deal with) ... the biased and corrupt insurer medical examination reports that are disqualifying innocent and legitimate accident victims.”
The government also announced it intends to amend the catastrophic impairment definition.
Does anyone doubt that these amendments will only serve to benefit insurance companies by restricting the number of victims who would otherwise qualify for the enhanced benefits applicable to the catastrophically impaired?
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Friday, May 29, 2015
Advocacy groups to hold rally protesting “very shady” industry practices
by Jill Gregorie | 29 May 2015
In response to last week’s advancement of Bill 91, Building Ontario Up Act, two advocacy groups are organizing a public protest to be held on June 3rd at Queen’s Park, Toronto called #Rally4AccidentVictims.
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform and the Accident Benefit Coalition are not just protesting provincial government, however.
The groups feel that insurance companies also unfairly benefit from the legislation, and allege that provincial government’s proposals to reduce coverage for the catastrophically injured is uncalled for, given the industry’s profit margins.
“It is unacceptable to be giving away money to wealthy insurance companies who are already using some very shady business practices to deny a record number of claims,” reads a release from FAIR.
Among these practices, FAIR contends, are insurance companies employing "for-hire physicians who provide insurers with the medical reports used to decide whether or not an injured claimant is entitled to treatment and benefits.”
In addition, the non-profit association alleges that this arrangement allows insurance companies to place severely injured victims in numerous social services programs, forcing taxpayers to cover their expenses instead of insurance payouts.
“Our government is giving insurers a financial gift by allowing insurers to pay injured victims less and simultaneously download the cost of victims to the unsuspecting taxpayers who are the same drivers looking for a break on insurance premiums,” FAIR said.
The groups are also calling for supporters to sign an online petition.
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform and the Accident Benefit Coalition are not just protesting provincial government, however.
The groups feel that insurance companies also unfairly benefit from the legislation, and allege that provincial government’s proposals to reduce coverage for the catastrophically injured is uncalled for, given the industry’s profit margins.
“It is unacceptable to be giving away money to wealthy insurance companies who are already using some very shady business practices to deny a record number of claims,” reads a release from FAIR.
Among these practices, FAIR contends, are insurance companies employing "for-hire physicians who provide insurers with the medical reports used to decide whether or not an injured claimant is entitled to treatment and benefits.”
In addition, the non-profit association alleges that this arrangement allows insurance companies to place severely injured victims in numerous social services programs, forcing taxpayers to cover their expenses instead of insurance payouts.
“Our government is giving insurers a financial gift by allowing insurers to pay injured victims less and simultaneously download the cost of victims to the unsuspecting taxpayers who are the same drivers looking for a break on insurance premiums,” FAIR said.
The groups are also calling for supporters to sign an online petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)