3 total
Application for physiotherapy and massage therapy benefits dismissed as applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan proposing physiotherapy and massage therapy.
The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination.
The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement, the treatment goals were unattainable, and previous treatment had not resulted in pain reduction.
The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.
Appeal allowed; motion to add surgeon as co-defendant dismissed as the claim was statute-barred.
The plaintiff sought to add an orthopaedic surgeon as a co-defendant to a medical malpractice action nearly ten years after the surgery, alleging that the surgeon fraudulently concealed an intraoperative event.
The Master granted the motion to add the surgeon with leave to plead a limitation period defence.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff and his counsel knew or ought to have known of the potential claim against the surgeon shortly after the surgery.
The court held that there was no fraudulent concealment and that the claim against the surgeon was statute-barred.
Proposed defendant added despite limitation defence due to factual dispute on discoverability.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add a surgeon as a defendant in a medical negligence action after the action had already been set down for trial.
The proposed defendant opposed the motion on the basis that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court held that there were genuine issues of fact and credibility regarding discoverability, including allegations that the proposed defendant failed to disclose an intra‑operative complication and may have misled the plaintiff’s counsel.
Applying the approach in Wong v. Adler, the court determined that such factual disputes should not be resolved on a motion to amend.
The surgeon was therefore added as a defendant with leave to plead a limitation defence.