Morrow v. Zhang par. 9, 14
in Land.Cases
[9] What kind of a system does Manitoba follow?
[14] Why does it say that the injury victims were not treated appropriately due to lack of financial means to pay the treatment costs? Shouldn't it be the case AFTER the reform since the reform CAPPED the amount for the non pecuniary damage?
Comments
After further reading, I guess [14] is due to the fact that prior to reform, injured victims had to first pay out of their pocket but they didn't have the money to? But prior to reform, couldn't they still make claim with the insurer right after the accident and then get treated after getting insurer approval?
Also in [23] it says the costs per treatment had decreased. Why would this be the case? Were there some governmental interference with the health professionals (chiro, masso, physio, etc) to have them lower the premiums after the reform?
I admire your diligence in going back to the source reading. If you really want to learn about this case, that's what you have to do. Based on past exams, however, you only have to know the facts/issues/rulings as given in the BattleCards. The study kit has over 60 pages on this case and that is probably much, much more than you have to know. Having said that, let me try to answer your questions.
[9] In that paragraph they don't mention Manitoba. You can find information on MB in the reading by KPMG called:
Research Report - Best Practices for Actuarial Involvement in the Regulatory Oversight Process of Property and Casualty Insurance Rates
In BattleActs, I call this KPMG.RegOv. Anyway, on page 23 of that report, it says that MB uses a combination of government-mandated and open competition. (It reminds me of BC where they have a public system for basic & optional auto insurance and an additional private system for optional insurance.)
[14] Your question here gets into the details of how auto insurance in AB worked prior to the reforms.
Prior to the reforms, there were no clear protocols for diagnosing and treating minor injuries. As a result, there was a wide range of outcomes for injury victims depending on their ability to navigate the system. Theoretically, proper treatment and compensation was possible, but many victims just didn't know how to get it.
Even though the caps were put into place after the reform, which seems like it would lower compensation, other parts of the reform ensured that money was spent more efficiently. Reform introduced better treatment protocols, so even though the system was cheaper, outcomes were better. (See below.)
[23] One goal of reform was to lower cost-per-treatment by creating protocols for diagnosis and treatment so the victim would receive appropriate medical treatment sooner.
Prior to reform, the victim may not have sought immediate medical treatment. That means their injuries could get worse and they would need more expensive treatment later.
It shouldn't have been necessary for the government to interfere with billing by health professionals. The reduction in cost would be because the victims were treated immediately. (That's the theory anyway!)
Hi,
I am not too sure how the 4K Cap actually treat victim as malingerer so stigmatizing?
And how the cap actually treating differently from other non-pecuniary damage, so that people think it's discriminatory?
Thanks and Cheers,
Wilson
The implication of the 4K cap on what are deemed minor injuries is that minor injuries are "no big deal". In other words: a person with minor injuries should just take their $4,000 compensation and stop whining and wasting the court's time. So being classified as having only a minor injury is potentially stigmatizing.
Actually, any level of capping has this same effect, whether it's 5K, 10K, or whatever. Under the 4K cap, someone with a minor injury is limited to 4K of compensation but someone else with a similar but only slightly worse injury would not be subject to this limit.
The cap is discriminatory for similar reasons. The distinction between minor and major injury can be arbitrary and someone who got classified as having a minor injury is prevented from seeking non-pecuniary damages at the same level as someone who has a major injury.
In other words, the cap creates a two-tiered system where injured parties are treated very differently depending on which tier they're in.
Okay, got you! Thank you Graham!
Hi,
Is the 4K cap on the compensation for minor injuries or the portion to compensate for general damages caused by minor injury?
Thanks
Yes, that's right (non-pecuniary damages.)