3 total
Incident in police vehicle constitutes an accident; late notice excused due to severe medical complications.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his right leg while being placed in the back seat of a police vehicle.
The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' and that the applicant was statute-barred for providing late notice.
The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an accident, as being a seated passenger in a police vehicle is an ordinary use, and the vehicle's use was the dominant feature of the injury, which ultimately led to a below-the-knee amputation.
The Tribunal also found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the late notice due to his severe medical complications and lack of sophistication.
The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for an orthopaedic assessment.
Application for catastrophic impairment and accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to meet 55% WPI threshold.
The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and various treatment plans following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, concluding his combined physical and mental impairment rating was 40%.
The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, dismissing the claim for post-104-week IRB.
As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted non-catastrophic limits, the claims for ACB and treatment plans were also dismissed.
Physicians found liable for medical malpractice after delayed diagnosis of compartment syndrome led to leg amputation.
The plaintiff slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store, suffering a knee dislocation.
She was taken to the hospital where she was treated by an emergency room physician and an orthopaedic surgeon.
Due to a delay in diagnosing and treating compartment syndrome and a vascular injury, the plaintiff's leg had to be amputated.
The court found that both physicians breached the standard of care by failing to conduct adequate examinations and communicate effectively, and that these breaches caused the plaintiff's injury.
The action against Wal-Mart was dismissed as any assumed breach of the standard of care did not cause the injury.