• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Antibex Software

Clinic Software - HCAI, TELUS eClaims, WSIB eServices

  • Features
  • Pricing
  • Company
  • Support
  • Blog
  • Help
  • Contact

In the industry · April 7, 2009

FSCO upholds formula for determining patient impairment

In determining a patient’s whole person catastrophic impairment, the practice of combining assigned percentages to psychological impairments with physical impairment ratings was recently upheld by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). Catastrophic impairment is a special impairment rating that allows for additional insurance coverage. It requires at least a 55% whole person impairment rating.

The case under review was Maria Augello and Economic Mutual Insurance Company. Ms Augello had been injured in a 2002 motor vehicle accident and subsequently assessed for a catastrophic impairment. This was not a precedent-setting case since a similar ruling was handed down in the case of Desbiens V. Mordini [2004] and upheld in the courts. That case was cited and considered in the Augello ruling. The reasoning in the earlier case assigned a numerical value or rating to each of psychological, physiological and anatomical losses of function. Combined, they provided a whole person impairment rating.

The practice of combining psychological and physical impairment assessments had, to this point, been controversial because Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) incorporates the American Medical Association’s Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Its interpretation of permanent impairment is that which results in a patient being markedly or extremely impaired due to mental or behavioural disorders.

In the recent case Economic Mutual’s assessors disagreed with the use of an AMA formula in Ontario legislation, as do most insurers, because it affects the scale of benefit payments. Without considering the psychological percentages, they concluded that Ms Augello’s whole person impairment score was 20%. However, they did agree that should the psychological percentages be included, then the whole person impairment would indeed be 55%. The Desbiens v. Mordini ruling created a uniform approach which did not exclude the psychologically injured who, historically, had been in a disadvantaged position.

In its ruling, the FSCO noted that the combination of assigned percentages to psychological impairments and physical impairment ratings was consistent with the purpose of Ontario’s accident benefits legislation [SABS Regulation 121.(2.2.)].

Filed Under: In the industry Tagged With: fsco, sabs

The Antibex Team

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Submitting Attendant Care Services Invoice to HCAI—And How We’re Prepping for It
  • Are Assessment Centers Ready to Prioritize How to Fix TMJ Forever? Why It Matters, and How Long Do TMJ Flare-Ups Last
  • Enhance Your Email Marketing with Flodesk Integration
  • Ontario 2024 Budget regarding Auto Insurance Regulation
  • Time to change your Server computer?
  • CaseRM Online Chart Notes: A New Way to Document Your Patient Encounters
  • SoftEther VPN: The Alternative to Hamachi for Company VPN

Data Backup

IDrive Remote Backup

Start Improving Your Office Efficiency

No Credit Card. No Contract. Yes, It's Super Easy!

Start Free Trial Learn More

Footer

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Policies

Universal Office

  • Features
  • Pricing
  • Free Trial
  • Support
  • Training
  • UO Servers

Follow Along

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
© 2025 Antibex Computer Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. · Privacy · Refund Policy