A recent decision by the Divisional Court in Ontario provides a plaintiff-friendly interpretation of the test for catastrophic impairment under the SABS.
In Security National Insurance Co. v Hodges, 2014 ONSC 3627 (Div. Ct.), GCS scored administered within 30 minutes of the accident were 11. He underwent surgery the day after the accident and scores fell to 3 while he was intubated, but rose to 10 once the trachea was removed. Roughly three days following the accident – and while still under the influence of medication – several GCS tests were administered and resulted in scores of 9. MRI and CT scans done at the time suggested that, while Mr. Hodges had suffered a brain injury from the accident, the extent of the injury was quite limited. GCS tests administered over the following days showed continuing improvement and the final GCS test indicated no impairment in consciousness.
The insurer denied the plaintiff's application for catastrophic impairment. The arbitrator found that the plaintiff met the test for catastrophic impairment and this finding was affirmed under appeal to FSCO. The insurer appealed to the Divisional Court.
In upholding the FSCO decision, the Divisional Court stated that what constitutes a reasonable period of time to conduct the GCS test should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It found that, in this case, the test was conducted within a reasonable period of time, given that the injured individual was still experiencing fluctuating levels of consciousness at the time of the test. The court rejected the argument that the GCS score had to have “prognostic value,” saying that this would turn the legal test for catastrophic impairment into a medical test. The court also rejected the argument that the statute required that the brain injury be the sole cause of the score of 9 or less, saying: “It is sufficient that the person claiming catastrophic impairment had any brain injury causing any impairment….”
It will be interesting to see if Hodges results in a greater number of applications for a CAT designation. Of course, the claimant still needs to show entitlement to benefits even if successful.