Dr. Selig Krajden

The plaintiff sued the defendant plastic surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging he breached the standard of care by failing to assess her and obtain x-rays within 7 to 10 days following surgery for a fractured finger.

The plaintiff claimed this delay prevented an immediate repeat surgery and necessitated a more complex corrective procedure months later.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no established standard of care requiring a general plastic surgeon to conduct a post-operative assessment and x-rays within the 7 to 10-day window.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was self-employed and a 50% owner of a cleaning business.

Applying section 4(3) of the Schedule, the Tribunal calculated her pre-accident income based on her last completed taxation year.

Because the business continued to generate significant profit post-accident, the insurer was entitled to deduct 70% of her share of the post-accident self-employment income under section 7(3)(b), reducing her IRB entitlement to nil.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding they were not proven to be reasonable and necessary and that the applicant had exhausted her medical rehabilitation limits.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed settlement for a minor plaintiff who sustained a crush injury to her hand in an elevator.

The parties agreed to a settlement of $150,000, inclusive of damages, costs, and disbursements.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, finding the minor had reached maximal medical recovery with minor permanent sensory deficits.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' solicitor's contingency fee of $40,000, finding it fair and reasonable given the time expended, the complexity of the damages issues, and the excellent result achieved.

The applicant was struck by a taxi as a pedestrian, sustaining severe facial injuries.

She sought statutory accident benefits for septorhinoplasty and scar revision, which the insurer denied.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found the appeal was not statute-barred because the insurer's subsequent reconsideration and second denial notice rendered the initial denial equivocal, resetting the limitation period.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's plastic surgeon over the insurer's expert.

The appeal was allowed and the disputed benefits were ordered payable with interest.