Showing posts with label injury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injury. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Signs and Symptoms of Myofascial Pain


The condition of myofascial pain syndrome is considered a chronic pain disorder. In this condition, pressure on trigger - or sensitive - points on your body result in pain in areas of your body that seem to be unrelated. This is known as referred pain.

Source/more:



Headaches After Traumatic Brain Injury


Headache is one of the most common symptoms after traumatic brain injury (often called post-traumatic headache). Over 30% of people report having headaches which continue long after injury.

Source/more:


Monday, December 12, 2016

How safe are the vigorous neck manipulations done by chiropractors?


The chiropractor had just worked on Lynne Beliveau’s neck when she became dizzy, unable to see or move. Rushed to the hospital, Beliveau had a shunt inserted to relieve pressure caused by swelling in her brain. The Ashburn woman suffered a series of strokes and today, eight years later, the 41-year-old mother of three suffers from constant vertigo.

Source/more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-safe-are-the-vigorous-neck-manipulations-done-by-chiropractors/2014/01/06/26870726-5cf7-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html






WSIB gives corporations millions while doctors, injured workers outraged


TORONTO, ON--(Marketwired - October 31, 2016) - Despite growing public attention surrounding the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's (WSIB) treatment of workers who get injured on the job, the WSIB announced Friday that they will further reduce employers' premium rates that fund the system.
Source/more:

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/oniwg-wsib-gives-corporations-millions-while-doctors-injured-workers-outraged-2170921.htm



Thursday, May 14, 2015

Personal Injury Law: Insurance changes a catastrophic ambush

As part of the provincial budget announced on April 23, the Ontario government has decided to first throw seriously injured accident victims off the bus and then deprive them of the ability to make a good recovery. The announcement comes as a total blindside to interested stakeholders.

b_200_0_16777215_00_images_stories_ltheadshots_merkur-darcy.jpgHistorically, whenever the Ontario government was considering major changes to automobile insurance legislation, there was widespread consultation with stakeholders. That consultation process consistently revealed it was common ground among all stakeholders that it was sacrosanct to reduce the benefits available to the most seriously injured persons. As a result, prior changes focused on changes other than reductions in the benefits available to the catastrophically impaired.

The government’s announcement includes five major changes. Each change reduces the funding available to accident victims. Each change reduces the chance for an accident victim to regain their independence. Each change results in further pressure on the currently underresourced public health care system.

Source/ more: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201505044652/commentary/insurance-changes-a-catastrophic-ambush


Wednesday, April 1, 2015

9 Things NOT to Say to Someone with a Brain Injury

http://www.brainline.org/content/2012/10/9-things-not-to-say-to-someone-with-a-brain-injury.html

Read the
Comments [183]

Is it the right time for a hidden disability symbol?

BY: RICHARD HASKELL

“You seem fine to me,” may be one of the worst things to say to a brain injury survivor – or anyone with a hidden disability – for that matter. This invisibility is one reason why Laura Brydges, an Ottawa woman living with the affects of brain injury, decided she need to do something to make hidden disabilities, visible. (You may have caught the recent Toronto Star article about her from a few weeks back.)
LAURA BRIDGES; PHOTO CREDIT: RG WHITE
LAURA BRYDGES; PHOTO CREDIT: RG WHITE
Since that article, Brydges’ Hidden Disability Facebook page has hit 5.2K likes. She’s getting attention from organizations, individuals and media from all over North America and the U.K. But a really big moment was receiving a photo of someone from the U.S. using one of her cards.

I have been overwhelmed. I can’t even describe the emotion,” Brydges said. Seeing that photo just touched me to the core, it made it real.”

Brydges stresses that making hidden disabilities visible is a safety issue.

She lists incidents where not understanding hidden disability can have deadly results. There was a child with autism in the U.S., she says, who was shot by the police. In Ottawa, there was a child in school who has handcuffed because of misunderstanding a hidden disability. In Winnipeg, there was a veteran with PTSD who was physically kicked out of a bar because he had a therapy dog. Brydges finds these stories and posts them on her Facebook page, collecting articles which prove  her point, time and time again.

Like many brain injury survivors, Brydges faces significant obstacles in her daily life, most of which are hidden. She has problems concentrating and has a low tolerance for noise or bright lights. She cannot drive or use public transit. Being in a large crowd for more than a short time can cause her to panic, sometimes to the point of tears.

Especially in the years right after her accident, Brydges says she couldn’t trust herself to be able to respond to an unexpected situation. For example, if someone on the street was having an emergency, she would have difficulty in processing information, to, for example, call 911. A frustrated first aid responder trying to enlist her help, repeating the message to her faster and louder to her would only make it worse.

Which is why, using nothing more than an interest in desktop publishing and sheer determination, Brydges designed a symbol consisting of a blue and white figure inside a circle with the words Hidden Disability on wallet-sized cards.
THE HIDDEN DISABILITY SYMBOL
THE HIDDEN DISABILITY SYMBOL
Similar to the international symbol of accessibility for those with physical disabilities, the card is something Brydges feels could be used by those affected by hidden disabilities such as brain injury, autism or epilepsy. She calls it ‘a self-advocacy tool’ people with hidden disabilities can use to educate the public on the obstacles they face every day.

Brydges  began working on her hidden disability symbol in 2009. A year later, through Facebook, she found 592 adults to participate in an online survey about whether there was a need for a hidden disability symbol. The result:  80 per cent of the participants (the majority of whom had a hidden disability) agreed an international symbol was needed. A few years later, Brydges asked for feeback on how to develop the symbol, which orginally was a checked figure. She changed that design after learning some people had difficulty processing it.
the
HIDDEN DISABILITY OPTIONS PRESENTED IN THE SURVEY
Brydges believes there’s a need for a hidden disability symbol, and the time is right for it. “I think people with hidden disabilities are ready. They’re tired of either living very small lives and not explaining themselves or having to explain themselves over and over again when they go out,” Brydges said. “They’re tired of people treating them poorly to the point of verbal abuse and sometimes to the point of physical abuse when they park in an accessible parking spot. Even though they have a permit. I think it’s just time.”

The hidden disability symbol could be her design or someone else’s, Brdyges is all about the cause, and willing to let word about the symbol spread organically. She’s made the symbol available for download, with some stipulations, and is working on improving its print quality. The front of the cards can have the name of the condition on the bottom and the back can be customized to meet specific needs of each condition.

Brydges also believes organizations which serve people with hidden disabilities have to work together. “We’re stuck in this model of ‘I have this condition’ and ‘you have that condition’ instead of ‘when we’re out, these are the common problems with environments that aren’t highly conducive to our functioning,” she said.

Inspired? Brydges thinks Hidden Disability awareness would spread even further if she could get on The Ellen Degeneres Show. You can help make that happen by filling out this online form here.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Persistent Soft Tissue Injuries and Headaches

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries and headaches following a collision.

In today’s case (Snidal v. Spires) the Plaintiff, who was 20 at the time, was involved in a 2010 collision in Parksville BC.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The Plaintiff suffered persistent soft tissue injuries and headaches which were partly disabling and not expected to improve.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Mr. Justice Fitch provided the following reasons:

[3]             The accident caused persistent soft tissue injuries to the plaintiff’s neck, back and right shoulder.  She continues to experience neck, back and shoulder pain – particularly along the top of her right shoulder.  She has suffered from headaches since the accident, some of which are debilitating…

[131]     The plaintiff is a young woman.  More than four years from the date of the accident, she continues to experience fairly constant pain and occasionally debilitating headaches.  Although her symptoms have likely plateaued, they are now chronic in nature and will be a permanent and regular feature of her daily existence.

[132]     The plaintiff is no longer able to enjoy her favourite recreational activities, nor the active lifestyle she once enjoyed.

[133]     She has become more withdrawn.  Her self-esteem and sense of self-worth were seriously compromised in the aftermath of the accident.

[134]     She experienced a major depressive disorder attributable to the accident and will likely experience some residual, but manageable, symptoms of that disorder in the future.

[135]     In all the circumstances of this case, and applying the factors in Stapley v. Hejslet, I consider an award of $85,000 for non-pecuniary damages to be just and appropriate.


Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/85000-nonpecuniary-assessment-persistent-soft-tissue-injuries-headaches?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29
 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

ACORN calls for a hike in disabled Ontarians' housing allowance





Members and volunteers of ACORN Ottawa gathered near the Human Rights Monument Wednesday to shine a light on problems with the Ontario Disability Support Program.




Mike Spencer and struggles on WSIB

Ever been injured at work? Think if you are you’ll be looked after and made whole? Many injured workers in Ontario are living another reality after being injured and then entering the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board – WSIB – system.

According to a website for Ontario injured workers, the “compensation system is meant to protect workers, their families, and the broader public against both the harm and the costs of work-related injuries. This system was created to provide injured workers with prompt and secure benefits that compensate them for as long as they are disabled. Workers’ compensation is supposed to be no-fault, prompt, and non-adversarial. Perhaps most importantly, the workers’
compensation system was designed to ensure that employers collectively pay the costs of workplace injuries, instead of foisting those costs on injured workers, their families, and the rest of us.

If unchecked, recent initiatives by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, will spell the end of workers’ compensation as we have known it. The Board’s management, with the full support of the provincial government, have instituted changes that will limit workers’ entitlement to benefits to a short period after the injury. Instead of a system that compensates workers for injuries, we will be left with system where most workers’ claims are denied and the few workers whose claims are accepted will be forced either back to work or into poverty.”

With me was local activist Mike Spence, himself an injured worker, and we had a discussion on the reality of life for injured workers in the WSIB system:

 Comments

Fred Palmer November 1, 2013 at 1:36 pm #
 
On August 30, 1979, I was thrown from, dragged, and crushed, by three rail cars. Company negligence caused the derailment that hurt 6 men. I am still standing. Barely. Since then I have been subjected to the most horrendous neglect and tortured by it. I was shattered from head to toe. Suffering a brain injury and moderate to severe Chronic Pain ever since. Pain so severe I nearly died of a stroke. Crippled so bad I cannot walk or stand for very long. Partially paralyzed on the right side of my back, frozen shoulder, twisted spine, herniated disks, crushed ankle, and if I walk or stand too long will develop blood clots. I was not told this and nearly died of blood clots. I was put back to work totally disabled from employment then slandered when I quit to see my doctor. For 34 years now I have lived in the utmost fear, depression, anxiety, and anger, at having my whole life stolen from me. I have nothing, exist with the charity of food banks and friends. A little over a year ago WSIB cut off my pension. I think because they say I am dead. Every crime has been committed against me, every insurance fraud, including fraud on the Supreme Court of Canada for disobeying a court order to treat patients in pain. The WSIB is killing its patients because of this neglect. I am one of its many victims. We only have government to blame for this mess they have created. The WSIB operates with a “get out of jail free” card. Two actually. If any Canadian accepts workers compensation insurance in this country, they are automatically classed as an “injured worker” and excluded from the Canada Health Act. You are then left at the mercy of a criminal insurance company who will cut off the most serious claims and leave the person in pain and poverty and stress. To make matters worse (can it get worse than having a criminal insurance company control your medical care and financial benefits?) you also lose your legal rights. Oh yes you heard that right. You have no legal rights. Each Workers Compensation Act in each Province removes an injured workers legal rights. Maybe it is time healthy Canadians ask why is this removal of rights taking place? I never gave up my rights. Did you? It appears to me the WSIB, and other Workers Compensation Boards, are using these Acts to commit every crime imaginable, including cutting off the most seriously injured and disabled citizens. Crimes for money. Leaving the injured workers and their families in absolute misery having to beg off family and friends to survive. And pain so severe they can’t even sleep. A life, a family, ruined by deceit, fraud, slander, theft, neglect, and discrimination. We need a National dialogue on the issue of workers compensation in this country. Too many are suffering needlessly by being denied medical care. Too many losing all they worked hard for. Too many committing suicide or dying from the stresses of being denied medical care and being forced into poverty. Wake up Canada. For our children’s sake, our families, friends and neighbours. For all of us.

Source: http://windsorshakeup.com/2013/11/01/oct-25-2013-mike-spencer-and-struggles-on-wsib/

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Local voice against wrongful benefit denials not staying silent

Local voice against wrongful benefit denials not staying silent
 
BY SHANNON DUFF EXPRESS MANAGING EDITOR

Editor’s note: The following is the final installment of a three-part series about local insurance advocate Jokelee Vanderkop and her efforts to help legitimate claimants ensure they receive their rightful benefits.

PALMERSTON – Ontario’s Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Act, is being touted as a good thing but could prove to be anything but, says Palmerston resident and insurance advocate Jokelee Vanderkop.
“Many people sing its praises because they’ve been told it’s good – but don’t really understand why — other than it fights fraud and will save the insurance industry a lot of money,” Vanderkop said. “The true implication of this bill on accident victims is anything but good.”

After a life-altering motor vehicle collision and more than a decade of battling to receive the insurance benefits she paid for, Vanderkop said she refocused her anger into an energetic effort to expose “what goes on for the majority of motor vehicle accident claimants.”

Those efforts resulted in her book — So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-off. She said her book exposes the great lengths to which insurers will go to deny legitimate claimants. Now, speaking out on Bill 15 is one of Vanderkop’s endeavours in her efforts to raise awareness on what claimants may endure in the journey to receiving the benefits to which they’re entitled.
For instance, Bill 15, Vanderkop explains, has made the arbitration process worse for claimants by removing the right to take their insurer to court when they have been denied benefits.

“Insurers rarely pay benefits unless the claimant hires a lawyer,” she said in December 2014, shortly after the bill was passed. “The question I ask is why one even needs to hire a lawyer when you pay for insurance coverage for benefits you will need when seriously injured in a car accident?”

Pete Karageorgos, director for consumer and industry relations for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, explained that those involved in a collision have seven days to report the incident. A package of paperwork, including applications and forms for the individual involved or a physician, then goes out to be completed.

The forms are reviewed by an adjudicator, who will “work with you for that process, find out what sort of injuries you may have, answer any questions, and move forward,” he said in an interview with The Express.

Insurance companies are subjected to a health-care levy, to the tune of about $142 million annually, imposed by the provincial government to help cover health-care costs.

“As an industry, we pay into OHIP for those services provided in hospital,” he said.

Bill 15 is meant to help combat insurance fraud, which Karageorgos said is alive and well indeed.

Insurance fraud takes place when someone attempts to take advantage of an auto insurance claim, or a physical damage claim — anything from making a fraudulent claim for injuries that don’t exist or for enhanced abuse, which means exaggerating the situation. He cited an example of a police officer in the Peel region who was convicted of fraud for falsifying a claim, or people staging collisions to take advantage of benefits.

In the province of Ontario, the annual cost of estimated fraud in 2010 ranged from $768 million to $1.56 billion, said Karageorgos.

“When insurance fraud is committed, we all pay,” he said.
But for legitimate claimants?

“If someone has a legitimate claim, they’re not going to have a problem,” said Karageorgos.

But for Vanderkop and the many legitimate claimants like her, that is simply not the case.

“One woman . . . said the insurer’s lawyer told her that he was paid over $500,000 per year to deny [claims.] Most [insurance] fraud is perpetrated by organized crime groups,” she said. “There is no real way to quantify fraud. Meanwhile, claimants get lumped in too as fraudsters . . .with no consideration of insurers’ fraudulent behavior towards legitimate claimants.”

She said she doesn’t deny that fraud happens, but the other side of the story is how insurers fight to try and deny claimants who have legitimate, medically verifiable claims of their rightful medical, income and disability benefits.
“Inform yourself. This could be you,” she said. “These people are silenced because they are too injured to speak up. When they are at their weakest, they will have to fight their hardest.”

She said she hopes So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-off will help raise awareness and educate legitimate claimants on how to successfully navigate the process.

“People need to have their stories heard, and there are plenty of them,” she said. “Do you want to hear the inside story, read about what insurers don’t want you to know, and learn about their misguided process and how you can fight back?”
Vanderkop’s book is available online, at the Book Shelf in Guelph, and Words Worth Books in Waterloo. She is available for public speaking engagements, and more information on Vanderkop and her book is available at www.deniedbenefitclaims.com.

Source: http://www.southwesternontario.ca/news/local-voice-against-wrongful-benefit-denials-not-staying-silent-3/

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Court Rejects “Perplexing” Defence Doctor Evidence Minimizing Plaintiff Disability

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing damages following a rear-end collision.

In today’s case (Sirak v. Noonward) the Plaintiff suffered “very significant and progressively worsening debilitating pain and neurological symptoms” as a result of a 2005 collision that the Defendant was responsible for.  In the course of the litigation the Defendant had the Plaintiff assessed by two physicians who provided the Court with an opinion that the Plaintiff “is not disabled” as a result of the collision related injuries.  In rejecting these opinions Madam Justice Warren provided the following critical comments:

[140]     In their reports, Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull both expressed the opinion that Mr. Sirak is not disabled. These opinions are perplexing because it is apparent from their reports that Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull were aware that Mr. Sirak was limited in his ability to work. Dr. Dommisse noted that Mr. Sirak had stopped bricklaying after the accident, and that his pain was aggravated by working overhead and working on a ladder. Dr. Turnbull noted, in his report, that Mr. Sirak was working “on and off as a painter”, on average four hours a day, and only three or four days a week. Both Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull agreed, in cross-examination, that if Mr. Sirak was limited in his ability to work in the manner and to the extent he had worked before the accident, then it would be appropriate to characterize him as disabled. Further, their opinions were based on their interviews and examinations of Mr. Sirak, which took place over the course of about an hour and-a-half for Dr. Dommisse and about an hour for Dr. Turnbull. The nature and extent of their inquiries pales in comparison to the work-capacity evaluations conducted by Mr. Kerr, who expressed the view that Mr. Sirak was significantly disabled. For these reasons, I do not accept the opinions of Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull as to Mr. Sirak’s disability.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $160,000 for the Plaintiff’s prolonged injuries the Court noted as follows:

[159]     Mr. Sirak is a middle aged man. He was 45 years old when the accident occurred and is now 55 years old. Prior to the accident, he was healthy, energetic and physically active. It is apparent from the lay witnesses, who testified on his behalf, that he was a cheerful, happy, outgoing person who enjoyed life and had many friends. His family was important to him and he enjoyed spending time with them. He enjoyed participating in a wide range of recreational activities. He worked long hours in a physically-demanding career, and had earned the respect of those in the construction industry in the Squamish and Whistler area.

[160]     For the past ten years, Mr. Sirak has suffered from severe, disabling, and progressively worsening pain and neurological symptoms. These symptoms have very significantly affected all aspects of his life. Even if he undergoes surgery, he is unlikely to experience any substantial improvement. His condition is most likely permanent. He faces many years of ongoing pain and compromised lifestyle. His personality has been affected. He has gained weight. His sleep has been affected. His appearance has changed. He has become sloppy and unkempt. He can no longer participate in most of the recreational activities he previously enjoyed. He cannot play with his grandchildren in the physical, rambunctious way that was his pre-accident nature. This, in particular, has caused emotional suffering. He has become quiet and socially withdrawn. He now spends most of his time alone.

[161]     It has become increasingly difficult for Mr. Sirak to continue to work as a painter or in any physical job. He has suffered financial consequences as a result, which will be addressed in the next section of this judgment, but this has affected his enjoyment of life in other ways as well. First, he has had to force himself to continue to work on a part-time basis so that he is able to support himself and his son, but this has further compromised his health and exacerbated his pain. Second, he has had to live with the prospect that his injuries will eventually preclude him from working in any physical job. Given his limited formal education, and now limited functionality, his options for more sedentary work are few. It is apparent, from a consideration of the whole of his evidence, that this reality, together with his poor prognosis, has weighed heavily on him, and has had an adverse effect on his overall emotional well-being…

[167]     Awards of damages in other cases provide a guideline only. Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts. Having considered the extent of Mr. Sirak’s injuries, and all of the cases presented by counsel, I am of the view that an award of $160,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in this case.

Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/court-rejects-perplexing-defence-doctor-evidence-minimizing-plaintiff-disability?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29
 

Monday, February 23, 2015

How to Measure a Medical Treatment’s Potential for Harm




Photo Credit Rob Dobi
As we wrote last week, many fewer people benefit from medical therapies than we tend to think. This fact is quantified in a therapy’s Number Needed to Treat, or N.N.T., which tells you the number of people who would need to receive a medical therapy in order for one person to benefit. N.N.T.s well above 10 or even 100 are common. But knowing the potential for benefit is not enough. We must also consider potential harms.

Not every person who takes a medication will suffer a side effect, just as not every person will see a benefit. This fact can be expressed by Number Needed to Harm (N.N.H.), which is the flip side of N.N.T.

For instance, the N.N.T. for aspirin to prevent one additional heart attack over two years is 2,000. Even though this means that you have less than a 0.1 percent chance of seeing a benefit, you might think it’s worth it. After all, it’s just an aspirin. What harm could it do?



But aspirin can cause a number of problems, including increasing the chance of bleeding in the head or gastrointestinal tract. Not everyone who takes aspirin will bleed. Moreover, some people will bleed whether or not they take aspirin.
Aspirin’s N.N.H. for such major bleeding events is 3,333. For every 3,333 people, just over two on average will have a major bleeding event, whether they take aspirin or not. About 3,330 will have no bleed regardless of what they do. But for every 3,333 people who take aspirin for two years, one additional person will have a major bleeding event. That’s an expression of the risk of aspirin, complementing the fact that one out of 2,000 will avoid a heart attack.



When 2,000 People Take a Daily Aspirin for Two Years: Help and Harm Are the Outcome

People at risk for heart attacks are often recommended to take aspirin daily — to prevent one, 2,000 such people must be treated. But that aspirin will also cause major bleeding events in some people. There is no way to know in advance who will be helped or harmed, but the statistical effect of treatment looks like this:
Prevented by aspirin Caused by aspirin With or without aspirin
Bad outcome or side effect
No bad outcome or side effect
Nonfatal
heart attacks



×
Cardiovascular
problems



×
Major
bleeding events



×

Granted, one out of 3,333 is a pretty tiny risk. But remember that the chance of benefit is pretty small, too.
Sometimes, though, the N.N.H. can be much lower, even lower than that of N.N.T., which suggests the chance of harm is greater than the potential benefit. Consider screening mammograms, which are considered so essential that they are the only screening tests specifically mentioned in the Affordable Care Act, and coverage for them with no cost sharing is required by the law.
If you look at the data for all randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening, the N.N.T. for recommending screening to prevent one death from breast cancer after 13 years of follow-up is 1,477. But further analyses show that the one woman would have probably died of other causes anyway. There may be no benefit at all with respect to preventing death from all causes.
Screening with mammograms can cause harm, though. They lead to overdiagnosis, encouraging the provision of therapies that provide no benefits — but do carry risks, and therefore are considered harms.



When 1,477 Women Have a Screening Mammogram

Over 13 years, one death from breast cancer will be prevented (although that woman might likely die of another cause). Many more people will receive unpleasant, potentially dangerous treatments. The statistical effect of treatment looks like this:
Prevented by screening mammogram Caused by screening mammogram With or without screening mammogram
Bad outcome or side effect
No bad outcome or side effect
Death from breast cancer
1 person
|


× 1,471
Lumpectomy or mastectomy


× 1,453
Radiotherapy treatment


× 1,460

If we look at those same studies, for every 333 women who are assigned to have a screening mammogram, one extra will undergo a lumpectomy or mastectomy as a result. One in every 390 women assigned to have a screening mammogram will undergo an extra course of radiation therapy as a result. (In these randomized controlled trials, patients are either assigned to get screening mammograms or they are not. The study then usually looks at the outcome for all who were assigned to get the mammogram, whether they actually did or not.)
In other words, for about every 1,500 women assigned to get screening for 10 years, one might be spared a death from breast cancer (though she’d most likely die of some other cause). But about five more women would undergo surgery and about four more would undergo radiation, both of which can have dangerous, even life-threatening, side effects.

Thus, N.N.H., paired with N.N.T., can be very useful in discussing the relative potential benefits and harms of treatments. As another example, let’s consider antibiotics for ear infections in children. There are many reasons that parents and pediatricians might consider treatment. One commonly cited reason is that we want to prevent serious complication from untreated infections. 
Unfortunately, antibiotics don’t do that, and the N.N.T. is effectively infinite. Antibiotics also won’t reduce pain within 24 hours. Antibiotics have, however, been shown to reduce pain within two to seven days. Not all children will see that benefit, though. The N.N.T. is about 20 for that outcome.

Antibiotics can cause side effects, however, including vomiting, diarrhea or a bad rash. The N.N.H. for side effects in this population is 14.

This means that when a child is prescribed antibiotics for an ear infection, it’s more likely that he will develop vomiting, diarrhea or a rash than get a benefit. When patients are presented with treatment options in this manner, they are sometimes more likely to agree to watchful waiting to see if the ear infection resolves on its own. For most children with ear infections, observation with close follow-up is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.


When 20 Children Take Antibiotics for an Acute Ear Infection

Most children with an ear infection will improve without antibiotics, but some will benefit. Some will also be harmed by side-effects from the antibiotics. The statistical effect of treatment looks like this:
Prevented by antibiotics Caused by antibiotics With or without antibiotics
Bad outcome or side effect
No bad outcome or side effect
Pain persisting
beyond 2-7 days



×
Ruptured eardrums


×
Diarrhea, vomiting
and rash



×

A wealth of N.N.T. and N.N.H. data based on clinical trials is available on a website developed by David Newman, a director of clinical research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai hospital, and Graham Walker, an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco. But it’s important to understand that results from clinical trials do not always reflect what happens in the real world. As criteria for treatment become more permissive beyond those applied in trials, the N.N.T.s can go up. But importantly, N.N.H.s often do not. Healthier people are less likely to see a benefit from antibiotics or an aspirin. But they are not less likely to have a side effect or complication.

This is because the harms associated with treatment usually have nothing to do with the underlying illness. They are caused by the therapy, regardless of the reason for use. Children will develop diarrhea, vomiting or rashes from antibiotics in the same relative amounts no matter why we are using them. Put another way, clinical trials are designed to target the class of patients that most likely benefits from treatment, but they are not targeted to those more or less likely to experience harm. When treatments are applied in real-world clinical settings, we generally don’t see changes in the proportion of patients harmed by them relative to trials.

When we stray from recommendations for therapies, and broaden the population given studied treatments, the N.N.T.s often go up, but the N.N.H.s stay the same. Things are often even worse than the data in studies make them look. Fewer people benefit, but just as many are harmed.

We hope that every therapy has a benefit. The N.N.T. shows us that benefits are often much less likely than many might think. The N.N.H. can show us how likely we are to have a harm compared with a benefit. Considering both, especially in light of how practice often differs from studies, can help us make better decisions about how to care for ourselves and those we love.

The Crash Tested Submission to Minister of Finance on Auto Insurance

C.Sousa,
Minister of Finance

Mr. Sousa,I am a motor vehicle accident survivor and a former small business owner however,I am not a low-information voter. I am perplexed,alarmed,dismayed and disgusted that your Ministry continues to acquiesce to each and every demand put forth by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). Ontario residents have seen benefits ravenously slashed to the bone or outright eliminated with no recourse.Meanwhile the insurance company plays games with rates and exponentially increases shareholder value on the backs of the injured,some catastrophically .Your government has forced legitimate accident claimants onto Social Services and require hospital care provided by the taxpayer while the insurer is allowed to avoid any responsibility and evade their contractual obligations.

Fraud has largely been perpetrated by organized crime and not the majority of the public yet you and your Ministry have fecklessly bought into the caustic propaganda the IBC has pervasively promoted.You've even outrageously come out as their boorish cheerleader touting what a wonderful thing these changes to auto insurance will do for Ontario drivers and those injured in a vehicle accident.You have never spoken specifically about Bill 15 but instead given the public your obtuse, irksome and mendacious platitudes and sound as if the new legislation is an accomplishment.

Your party claims to be the guardian of compassion but the punitive actions leveled against injured victims,including those who can no longer defend themselves,but you have chosen to accept personal cash benefits from an industry you and your Ministry are mandated to regulate.You are no longer serving the people,something you swore to do.

I will not get into issues such as contemptuously removing the Constitutional right to seek remedy in court.I will not waste my time pointing out the egregious and  inherent problems with the removal of experienced arbitrators and scandalously replacing them with political appointees,that is absurd.There is little point in bring up the insurance industry's proclivity to use rouge doctors who produce bogus medical assessments.You are fully and completely aware of the widespread damage along with personal and financial grief caused by your horrible actions injured accident victims and their families will now face for a lifetime all for your exclusive purposes.You have abdicated your responsibility as Minister of Finance for personal gain while adamantly ignoring the issues that many,including myself,have tried unsuccessfully to convey to you and your Ministry regarding auto insurance.

I have no confidence you will listen to anyone but the IBC and this is largely a public relations exercise that will be neglected just as every single person,group and organization has been throughout the phony public consultations that your government held leading up to the passing of Bill 15.May I suggest that the pair of shoes you buy for budget day be a pair of sandals,they're full of holes,I have every confidence the symbolism will be forebodingly apt.

thecrashtested.com 




Source: thecrashtested.com

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Rick Mercer: Harper Government Makes Injured Veteran Prove His Legs Haven't Grown Back




Posted: Updated:  


By now it's clear Rick Mercer is deeply concerned about the treatment of Canada's veterans.

The CBC host has addressed the topic many times in the past few years — from the cuts at Veterans Affairs to pension battles to the controversial lump-sum payments awarded to injured soldiers.

But his rant this week on the Rick Mercer Report, which focused on the class-action lawsuit veterans of the Afghan war have launched against the federal government, felt more personal than most.

Mercer began by making reference to the $700,000 feds have already spent in legal fees battling veterans in court. A group of ex-soldiers have argued the new veterans charter does not offer the same benefits as the previous pension system.

Federal lawyers, however, have argued in court that Ottawa has no special obligation or "social contract" with vets, as was proclaimed during the First World War by Prime Minister Robert Borden. The lawyers also argue it is unfair to bind Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to vows made nearly a century ago.

"They admit, yes, prior to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden promised that Canada had a sacred obligation to veterans," Mercer said. "But our government is saying that's no longer true. No obligation at all."
But Mercer says that for anyone who knows a disabled veteran, this comes as no surprise. And it turns out he is one such person.

"My buddy Paul is a veteran," Mercer said. "He lost both his legs in Afghanistan. Every year they make him prove over and over again his legs are still gone."
Mercer said Paul has been told four times that he'd have to get a note from a doctor proving the extent of his injuries.

"Literally a note saying his legs have not grown back," he said. "You know, in case he's pulling a fast one."

Mercer ended his rant with a suggestion for Canadians, should they ever run into an MP boasting about how much is being done to care for veterans.
"Don't take them at their word," he said. "Tell them to prove it."

Retired Master Cpl. Paul Franklin, who was injured in a 2006 suicide bombing in Kandahar, has confirmed that he was was the subject of Mercer's rant.
In a Facebook post that has since been published on The Huffington Post Canada, Franklin said Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole requested a phone call with him shortly after Mercer's show aired.

In his written reply, Franklin told the rookie minister that he allowed Mercer to share his story "for all vets and their families that fight through this horror every day of their lives."

He also declined to speak with O'Toole by phone, saying the conversation may help him but not hundreds of thousands of other veterans.

"Until we are treated by all parties with the respect, dignity, honour and compassion we deserve, then I can't in good conscience take a phone call regarding my issues," he wrote.

Franklin, who lives in Edmonton, has become an advocate for amputees and serves on the board of directors of the Amputee Coalition of Canada.

He was also the subject of a 2006 documentary that appeared on  CBC's "The National."


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/05/rick-mercer-veterans-rant-_n_6622452.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Expediting a Catastrophic Application

February 18, 2015  |  By:  Michelle Baumann

When a person is seriously injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident, costs for medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care services are often substantial. In most cases in Ontario, those who suffer a catastrophic impairment are able to access up to $1,000,000 for medical and rehabilitation benefits and up to $1,000,000 for attendant care benefits through accident benefit claims with their own automobile insurer. Having access to such benefit limits can afford an injured person with many freedoms and much security during the recovery process.

There are a number of ways that an injured person can be declared catastrophically impaired. Some people are able to immediately be declared catastrophic; immediate opportunity is afforded to those who suffer paraplegia or quadriplegia, amputation, or total loss of use of either an arm or a leg, total loss of vision in both eyes, or brain impairment resulting in a score of 9 or less on the Glasgow Coma Scale.

Although not an immediate opportunity, those who suffer brain impairment that results in a score of 2 (vegetative) or 3 (severe disability) on the Glasgow Outcome Scale may also be declared catastrophically impaired if the test is administered after at least six months have passed since the accident.

For those who suffer serious injuries but who don’t meet any of the above noted criteria, there can often be delays in pursuing a catastrophic declaration. As a result of such delays, and with only $50,000 and $36,000 being otherwise available for med/rehab and attendant care benefits, people often exhaust their non-catastrophic limits long before being declared catastrophically impaired.
After a two year waiting period, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule confirms that an individual can apply for a catastrophic declaration if they have an impairment or combination of impairments that, in accordance with the AMA’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition (1993), results in 55% or more impairment of the whole person. A person can also make application in accordance with the Guides if, again after two years, they suffer an impairment that results in a class 4 (marked) or a class 5 (extreme) impairment due to mental or behavioural disorder.

The good news is that this two year waiting period can sometimes be bypassed! Although it is often overlooked, by healthcare professionals and insurers alike, the Schedule confirms that the two year waiting period need not be applied to an injured person who suffers an impairment that is “unlikely to cease to be catastrophic”. In such cases, an application can be pursued so long as a physician, or a neuropsychologist in limited cases, confirms in writing that the impairment is indeed unlikely to cease to be catastrophic.

Particularly for those that will exhaust their non-catastrophic benefit limits quickly, being declared as catastrophically impaired at the first opportunity is vitally important. The timing and justification of a catastrophic application requires thoughtful and careful consideration. Having the support of expert medical and rehabilitation professionals, as well as having access to a knowledgeable personal injury advocate, is highly recommended for those dealing with serious injuries.


Source: http://oatleyvigmond.com/expediting-catastrophic-application/#.VOTPSS5YwdU

Monday, February 9, 2015

Kenney pledges to wipe out social security tribunal backlog by this summer

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Myofascial Pain

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for partly disabling chronic myofascial pain symptoms following a collision.

In today’s case (Camilleri v. Bergen) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2011 collision.  The Defendant admitted fault.  The Plaintiff suffered from chronic myofascial pain symptoms which were not expected to improve.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Madam Justice Loo provided the following reasons:

[74]        As discussed above, Ms. Camilleri now suffers from chronic myofascial pain as a result of the accident. She is unlikely to recover and, at best, she may mitigate some of her symptoms. I can do no better than to summarize her symptoms as set out in Dr. Dost’s report. She complains of:

1.   Constant cervical or neck pain that radiates to the interscapular region, left shoulder and diffusely down her arm to her third and fifth fingers;
2.   Constant thoracolumbar or back pain, without radicular symptoms, but with numbness and tingling;
3.   Headaches almost daily. About four days a week she has a dull headache, occipital pressure, and some nausea. Three days a week her headaches are quite severe and radiate to her left eye with pressure, pounding, nausea, and light and noise sensitivity;
4.   Sleep disruption secondary to pain;
5.   Altered mood;
6.   Light-headedness (a faint-like sensation that occurs early in the morning);
7.   Increased tinnitus;
8.   Increased blurred vision requiring stronger prescription glasses; and
9.   Difficulties with memory, processing speed, multitasking, attention and recall.

[75]        Her symptoms are not likely to improve. The evidence suggests that she can only learn to cope with her symptoms with psychiatric or psychological counselling, a physiatrist to deal with the physical complaints, and possibly a pain clinic to help her deal with her pain.

[76]        Ms. Camilleri’s life has been affected dramatically and profoundly by the accident. Her symptoms have been a tremendous challenge for her both emotionally and physically. She was a very high energy person who was fully committed to her family and to her work. She was a leader in her field. I could not help but have the impression that Ms. Camilleri was so committed to her work and patients at the eating disorder clinic that she was more concerned about helping the patients and the community rather than making money. She could easily have made more money in private practice but she was committed to helping those who could not afford private care. She was so committed to her work that she increased her hours of work after the accident so that her patients would continue to have treatment despite the toll it has taken on her physical and emotional health.

[77]        Ms. Camilleri said that it has been emotionally challenging for her to be forced to step back into what she considers a lesser role in the treatment of the eating disordered. She enjoyed her volunteer positions, she enjoyed teaching, she enjoyed the continuing education opportunities with other health professionals, and she enjoyed research. Those are things she can no longer enjoy.

[78]        She was also a physically active person who enjoying skiing with her family, running, cycling, water-skiing, gardening, and she enjoyed sharing many of those activities with her husband and daughters. Those are things she can no longer enjoy. She no longer even travels.

[79]        I have no reason to doubt Ms. Camilleri’s evidence. There is no suggestion that she is anything other than a credible, straightforward witness who keeps doing her best in situations where others likely would have given up. But she has been forced to give up many of the things in life that she enjoyed…
[88]        I conclude that an appropriate award in this case for non-pecuniary damages is $90,000.

Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/90000-nonpecuniary-assessment-chronic-myofascial-pain?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29
 

Meet the man injured Ontario workers ‘love to hate’

David Marshall will steer the perpetually challenged Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for another two years.

Critics say David Marshall's job "is to disqualify injured workers from receiving their rightful benefits." A spokesman for the labour minister, however, says he is "improving outcomes for injured workers."
Richard J. Brennan / Toronto Star Order this photo
 
Critics say David Marshall's job "is to disqualify injured workers from receiving their rightful benefits." A spokesman for the labour minister, however, says he is "improving outcomes for injured workers." 

David Marshall is a man who is both praised and reviled.

As the reappointed head of the perpetually challenged Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the 69-year-old Marshall acknowledges he is not about to win a personality contest.

“Everybody loves to hate the WSIB . . . but we are doing a lot for workers,” the president and CEO, who is paid $400,000 a year, told the Star after his appointment was recently extended by two years.

The WSIB is a vast provincial government bureaucracy that takes in premiums from employers and distributes disability payments to injured workers.
Since taking over in January 2010, Marshall has met the challenge of reducing the unfunded liability — money owed to injured workers that it doesn’t have — by several billion dollars. That has made the bookish former senior federal bureaucrat, auditor, banker and diplomat the darling of the debt-ridden Liberal government.

Injured workers and labour leaders are far less complimentary, accusing Marshall of cutting costs on the back of workers struggling to get benefits.
“The combination of fewer injuries, better return to work, better management of our investment fund and higher premiums than we need for day-to-day . . . we are well ahead of our schedule that the government has set in order to become fully funded (by 2027),” Marshall, former Canadian ambassador to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, told the Star, insisting his organization is the best of its kind in North America.

Among other things, the board is concentrating on getting injured workers back to health with “tailor-made” programs with flexible recuperation deadlines.
“Our research shows that if you don’t get a worker back within 90 days of their injury, the chances that they ever go back to work drop by 50 per cent,” said Marshall, adding the WSIB hired 300 additional staff to help those injured “negotiate” their way back. 

The unfunded liability has been shrunk from a high of $14.2 billion to just over $9 billion in five years, the number of workers not back to work after a year has dropped by more than half and lost time claims have dropped by 17 per cent — from 50,667 in 2009 to 41,987 in 2013. All the while employers are paying the highest premiums in Canada.

On average there are 200,000 claims made each year to the WSIB. The vast majority — 60 per cent — are dealt with without any work time being lost.
“Over the last five years, David Marshall has led the WSIB through a significant transition toward improving outcomes for injured workers and returning the board to financial stability,” a spokesperson for Labour Minister Kevin Flynn said in an email statement.

“He has refocused the board’s objectives in helping injured workers return to work, diversified the WSIB’s investment portfolio, and transformed its medical strategy, work transition and return-to-work programs,” he said.
Ontario Federation of Labour president Sid Ryan calls Marshall “the equivalent of the modern day bounty hunter.” 

“His job is to disqualify injured workers from receiving their rightful benefits . . . The $400,000 is his bounty for his work over the last year,” Ryan said.
Catherine Fenech, of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers’ Groups, said since Marshall arrived, “we’ve seen a steady decline in the number of claims being accepted . . . and an increase in workers being told the board thinks they can go back to work no matter how badly injured they are.”

Marshall counters that about 45 to 46 per cent of claims now are getting approved automatically using “computer logic,” which then allows us more time to focus on the others who need additional help.

John McKinnon, executive director of Injured Workers Consultants community legal clinic, said that under Marshall the WSIB no longer publishes statistics on claims denied, forcing him to make requests through the Access to Information act.

“That may explain how they are reducing their expenses,” he said.
In 2009 the WSIB paid out $3.2 billion in benefits. By 2013 it had dropped by 22 per cent to $2.5 billion. 

McKinnon said the WSIB insists the workplaces are safer, which the corporation claims contributes to the reduction in lost time claims.

“But the number of traumatic fatalities has actually gone up by 43 per cent between 2009 and 2013,” he said, noting that there were 68 on-the-job deaths in 2009 compared to 97 in 2013.

McKinnon claims there has also been a reduction in the board’s recognition of permanent impairment, adding those numbers have gone down by 37 per cent, since 2012. 

At the end of Marshall’s two-year-old term, which will round out a seven-year stint, he will be rewarded with an additional nine months pay for ostensibly helping with the transition to the new head.

Sitting in his perch, high atop Toronto in the WSIB’s Front St. boardroom, Marshall, former assistant auditor general for Canada, says he was brought in to snatch the WSIB back from the brink of financial ruin yet make sure injured workers are looked after, which he says is being done despite what the critics say.

“If a worker is injured, they get 85 per cent of their wages and if they can’t go back to work until age 65 they get a pension plan that we fund completely. They get medical care that is in excess of what OHIP provides . . . and they are entitled to retraining for a new job if they can’t (return to) their old job. The spouses are supported, their children are supported if there is fatality, so this is a very comprehensive system,” he said.

NDP MPP Taras Natyshak (Essex) said despite what Marshall says, his office is deluged with WSIB complaints.

“I say that strictly from the sheer volume that we see coming to our office in terms of injured workers, who are in crisis mode . . . people are falling through the cracks. We get calls all the time — non-stop — and it is not getting any better,” he said.


Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/31/meet-the-man-injured-ontario-workers-love-to-hate.html