Ontario’s Deficit and Insurer Accountability

The ORA was invited to present to the Ministry of Finance’s Pre-Budget Hearings. Here’s what Executive Director, Laurie Davis had to say:

This government has made changes to mandatory auto insurance that dramatically reduce insured coverage for those who are serious injured in motor vehicle accidents. Insurance companies with happy shareholders and healthy profits cry poor and this government responds. The past six years have been a death by a thousand cuts to the basic auto insurance package that insurers are required to provide. This coming June, the biggest cuts to date will take effect. Those with serious and catastrophic injuries will find themselves running out of insured benefits for their rehabilitation long before they are able to return to their pre-accident lives. They won’t return to school or jobs or be able to look after their families. In many cases their lives will be changed forever, and not for the better.

Parallel to these changes we’ve seen publically-funded rehab eroded to the vanishing point. For example, physiotherapy has pretty much been delisted from OHIP and CCAC-funded home care rehab has almost disappeared.

So, these cuts to auto insurance will mean further strain on our shrinking public health and social services systems, and therefore the Provincial budget. Without the proper treatment post-accident, there will be more trips to emergency rooms, more visits to family physicians, more prescriptions to manage pain for longer periods, more poverty, more family breakdown, more mental health issues, more addictions – more misery.

Ontarians are paying a high price because of the effectiveness of the insurance lobby.

This is sad. What is also sad is that most drivers and passengers have no idea about what will happen to them if they or their children are hurt in a car accident. They believe, wrongly, that their car insurance will cover them. They believe, wrongly, that OHIP can pick up any slack in their insured benefits.

If this government wishes to impact the deficit it need only change its auto insurance policy and once again hold insurers accountable for providing sufficient coverage. If this government won’t do that it must educate Ontarians about auto insurance so that they can make informed choices and buy additional, optional benefits before it’s too late.

I respectfully ask you as Associate Minister of Finance to rebalance the priorities from insurer profitability to protecting Ontario drivers – and ensure they get the coverage they need, and pay for, when they buy auto insurance.

To read the presentation please click here.

Car insurers and lawyers brawl in public

Two sides point to each other as reason for high insurance premiums. The truth is, they’re both responsible

By Alan Shanoff, Toronto Sun

A slugging match recently erupted between car insurance companies and Ontario personal injury lawyers.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) opened by claiming the public needs regulatory oversight of contingency fees charged by personal injury lawyers.

The IBC feels a change is necessary to protect consumers and allow the government to evaluate the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto insurance system.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) countered by releasing a study it commissioned concerning auto insurance premiums.

According to the study, prepared by two professors at York University’s Schulich School of Business, “consumers in Ontario may have overpaid for auto insurance by between $3 and $4 billion over the period 2001 to 2013.”

The OTLA urged an independent “thorough and truly transparent” review of auto insurance by Ontario’s Auditor General.

Reacting quickly, the IBC fired back through a press release, pointing the finger back at personal injury lawyers claiming, “lawyers’ fees are simply too high and have a significant impact on the cost of auto insurance.”

The IBC supported its conclusion by claiming some lawyers charge 40%, while others between 25% and 33% of any settlement or judgment.

I doubt many lawyers would dare charge a 40% contingency fee, although even a 25% to 33% fee may be too high in some cases.

But, the IBC forgot to mention clients don’t pay the entire contingency fee as a good part of the fee is paid by the insurance company.

To rub it in further, the IBC stated, “In 2013, lawyers received an estimated $500 million from injury claimants out of their insurance settlements for bodily injury claims. These are real dollars that never make it to the claimant. IBC will continue to fight for increased transparency so that consumers can actually see where their insurance dollars go.”

But I don’t think insurers want to open the transparency can of worms.

If they want to talk about “real dollars” that don’t make it to claimants, check out the vast sums paid by insurers for their so-called independent medical examinations (IMEs), used to belittle or deny claims.

According to the most recent Ontario Health Claims Database, insurance companies paid approximately $372 million for IMEs for accidents taking place in the last four years.

In some years, insurance companies forced almost half of all claimants to attend IMEs and in each year the average amount paid per assessed claimant for these exams exceeded the average amount paid per claimant for all medical and rehabilitation expenses.

Sending claimants for multiple and expensive assessments to pro-insurer experts is a major contributor to insurers’ costs and takes “real dollars” out of the pockets of claimants.

That’s not to say lawyers are free of blame.

There’s a long history of lawyers neglecting to act diligently to expose insurer experts who file partisan reports, sometimes outside their sphere of expertise, used by insurers to delay and deny claims.

As well, quality control at some law firms is substandard.

The FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform has recently posted an announcement stating, “ALERT – we are hearing about more and more cases where time limitations for filing have lapsed due to plaintiff’s legal representatives failing to meet limitation period deadlines.”

Then again, motor vehicle litigation and accident benefits claims are highly complex and insurance company tactics often lead to increased fees.

And if the insurance industry wants to point fingers at personal injury lawyers, perhaps they ought to make complete disclosure of the money they spend on defence lawyers and adjusters to deny, delay and defend claims.

Furthermore, how much do insurers pay to fund their massive public relations campaigns — including political contributions to those in power — which they effectively use to portray accident victims as opportunistic, malingering or just plain fraudulent?

It seems there is a lot of mud that can be thrown at each side in this messy debate.

But while the debate drags on, insurers continue to exact high premiums and lawyers receive handsome payments for their work.

And accident victims? They’re stuck in the middle.

Car crash victims deserve better deal

Ontario’s car insurance system seems to work well except for consumers who need it and accident victims who make legitimate claims under it.

After all, the insurance industry is making good money.

Lawyers are amply rewarded acting for plaintiffs and insurance firms.

Doctors earn significant sums preparing insurer-requested medical reports.

Treatment providers receive good compensation for treating the injured.

Premier Kathleen Wynne received generous financial support from the car insurance industry when she ran for the Liberal leadership.

The Liberal party receives significant campaign donations from it.

But here’s the problem. Two problems, actually.

The first is fraud by people trying to rip off insurance companies with phony claims. We agree it happens and it’s a serious problem.

But what we don’t understand is why the amount of fraud — to hear it from the insurance companies — never, ever, seems to decrease.

Fraud, we’re told, is the main reason auto insurance premiums in Ontario remain stubbornly high, no matter how many times the government cuts back benefits to all accident victims at the behest of the insurance industry, as it did again in its latest budget passed last week.

We also think there’s another kind of fraud in the insurance industry that needs to be addressed by government.

That fraud happens when people who have faithfully paid their auto insurance premiums year after year are hurt in serious accidents and, when they make legitimate claims for the benefits promised in their policies, are denied them.

It happens when car insurers fight against paying genuine claims from accident victims, falsely making them out to be the enemy and going to absurd lengths in and out of court to deny them the benefits to which they are entitled.

Last week, hundreds of demonstrators at Queen’s Park protested this kind of fraud as the Liberals passed yet another piece of legislation favoured by the insurance industry that will cut in half benefits for people who sustain catastrophic, life-changing injuries in car accidents.

Prior to the passage of the budget, Finance Minister Charles Sousa boasted, “Ontario is the most generous in Canada when it comes to providing coverage for auto insurance.”

Last week, Sun legal affairs analyst Alan Shanoff, demonstrated conclusively in his column how this statement was inaccurate.

In fact, Ontario doesn’t provide the most generous benefits for either catastrophic injuries or for so-called “minor” ones, which can include dislocation of joints, partial tears of tendons and ligaments and whiplash not exhibiting neurological symptoms.

As the FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform put it: “The budget does nothing to ensure that insurer claims management practices are fair and there has been no action (to deal with) … the biased and corrupt insurer medical examination reports that are disqualifying innocent and legitimate accident victims.”

We agree. It’s time to end this type of insurance fraud, as well.

Ontario Minor Injury Guideline a limit but not exclusion to Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule: Court

Jun 9, 2015 1:10 PM –

Nothing in Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule “expressly incorporates by reference the entirety” of the province's Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for auto insurance claims, but the “burden of proof” is on claimants “to establish entitlement to the appropriate level” of auto accident benefits, the province's Divisional Court suggested in a recent ruling.

Ontario’s Divisional Court has ruled on how to apply the minor injury guideline in auto insurance, in a dispute between Lenworth Scarlett and Belair Insurance Company Inc.The Divisional Court ruled Friday largely against Lenworth Scarlett, who was injured in September, 2010 when the vehicle in which he was a passenger was rear-ended. The vehicle's insurer, Belair Insurance Company Inc., is essentially disputing Scarlett's contention that his injuries fall outside the MIG, which puts a $3,500 limit on auto insurance claims for a minor injury, which could include a “sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and any clinically associated sequelae.”

In March, 2013, an arbitrator with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), John Wilson, ruled that Scarlett was “not precluded” from claiming housekeeping, attendant care and medical and rehabilitation expenses beyond the $3,500 limit of the MIG.

But the following November, FSCO appeals officer David Evans, a director's delegate, determined that Wilson's analysis had several legal errors that “required the matter be returned for a new arbitration hearing,” wrote Mr. Justice Robbie D. Gordon, of the Divisional Court, in its June 5 decision. That was on a judicial review requested by Scarlett, who asked the court to set aside Evans' decision and to reinstate the order that Scarlett is not precluded from claiming benefits above $3,500.

Related: New arbitration hearing ordered in Ontario minor injury guideline dispute

Rather than reinstate Wilson’s decision, the Divisional Court remitted Scarlett's case for a new preliminary issue hearing.

Evans, in 2013, “decided that rather than having only the preliminary issue addressed at the new arbitration, it would be most just and expedient to have all of Mr. Scarlett's issues addressed in one arbitration hearing before a new arbitrator,” Justice Gordon wrote on behalf of himself, Madam Justice Ann Molloy and Mr. Justice David L. Corbett.

The Divisional Court found that most of Evans' findings were reasonable. The court agreed with Evans' finding that Belair was denied procedural fairness when Wilson “raised arguments of his own for the first time, conducted research of his own, and inappropriately applied section 233 of the Insurance Act, all without first raising the matters with counsel and allowing an opportunity for submissions to be made.”

But the court disagreed with Evans’ finding that the MIG is “as binding” as SABS.

The MIG “remains a non-binding interpretative aid in deciding whether Mr. Scarlett comes within the MIG,” Wilson wrote in 2013. “In the absence of clear legislative direction that would override the existing jurisprudence as to burden of proof, it remains the insurer's burden to prove any exception to or limitation of coverage on the civil balance of probabilities. In this case, that burden has not been met.”

At the time, Wilson found it was “not at all clear that (Scarlett) also did not suffer from any other conditions that were neither soft tissue injuries nor the sequelae therefore, or that the sum of his injuries from the accident was minor in nature.”

Justice Gordon noted that there is “no provision in the SABS which expressly incorporates by reference the entirety of the MIG.”

Therefore, “it is necessary to examine each reference to the MIG to determine if it is an express reference thereto, and if so, what part of the MIG is required for the proper interpretation of the SABS provision in question,” the Divisional Court found.

“Although it is fundamental to insurance law that the burden of proof rests on the insured to establish a right to recover under the terms of the policy, so too is it fundamental that when an insurer relies upon an exclusion in the policy to avoid payment, the onus of proving that the loss falls within the exclusion generally lies upon the insurer,” Justice Gordon added. But the court ruled that neither Section 14 or Section 18 of SABS creates such as exclusion.

Related: MIG Schmig

Court records indicate that in his request for judicial review, Scarlett argued that Evans had “erred in finding that the $3,500 limit on medical and rehabilitation expenses,” in section 18 (1) of SABS “was not an exclusion of benefits.”

That section stipulates that “the sum of the medical and rehabilitation benefits payable in respect of an insured person who sustains an impairment that is predominantly a minor injury shall not exceed $3,500 for any one accident, less the sum of all amounts paid in respect of the insured person in accordance with the Minor Injury Guideline.”

Section 18 (1) creates limits but not exclusions on an auto insurer's liability under SABS, the Divisional Court ruled.

Therefore, it “reasonable” for Evans “to find that the effect of sections 14 and 18 is to create three tiers of benefits relating to medical and rehabilitation benefits,” Justice Gordon wrote.

Those tiers are:

-A maximum of $3,500 for an impairment that is predominantly a minor injury;

-A maximum of $50,000 if the impairment is not a minor injury and is not catastrophic; and

-A maximum of $1,000,000 for an impairment that is catastrophic.

“There being no exception, the Director Delegate reasonably and correctly held that the burden remains on the insured throughout to establish entitlement to the appropriate level of benefits,” the Divisional Court found.

The June 5 Divisional Court decision “is helpful in some ways, but not in others,” law firm Dutton Brock LLP commented in a bulletin. “There is no judicial review of whether chronic pain or (temporal madibular joint) impairments can be considered ‘clinically associated sequelae.’ The finding that the Guideline is only binding on the limited basis of ‘specific reference’ in the Regulation makes interpretation more challenging.”

Hundreds rally against cuts to auto insurance benefits

By Maryam Shah, Toronto Sun

First posted: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 08:22 PM EDT

TORONTO – Changes to auto insurance benefits for motor vehicle accident victims passed in the Ontario legislature Wednesday as part of the provincial budget.

“God help us all,” Tammy Kirkwood said upon hearing the news. “We’re getting a lot less coverage for a lot more money and I’m not sure why.”

Kirkwood was one of hundreds of protesters at Queen’s Park rallying against reductions in auto insurance benefits which they say will have the most effect on victims with catastrophic injuries.

The 47-year-old Orillia woman said protesters were “flabbergasted” that the provincial government “was trying to disable our resources and our funding to recover.”

Part of the changes to auto insurance rules under the new budget mean that combined coverage for medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits for the catastrophically injured will be cut in half from its current cap of $2 million to $1 million.

Kirkwood survived a 2008 collision when a dump truck hit her car. She had to be pried free from her vehicle by firefighters, and was deemed catastrophically injured.

She says she was only able to move forward because she had access to the services she needed.

Unable to return to work, Kirkwood now volunteers as an advocate with FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform.

New Democratic Party MPP Jagmeet Singh spoke at the rally in support of their cause.

The cuts affect “the most vulnerable people,” such as people with brain and spinal cord injuries, he said.

“They need benefit coverage … to live an at least somewhat decent life,” Singh pointed out.

A spokesman for Finance Minister Charles Sousa said the government is “working hard to create a fair and affordable insurance system” for the province’s 9.4 million drivers.

Ontario is “the only province in Canada to offer exclusive catastrophic coverage,” Kelsey Ingram said in an e-mail.

“Catastrophically impaired claimants will also continue to be able to sue an at-fault party to recover damages for health-care expenses and potentially other claims,” she added.

The provincial government is also committed to making sure any savings from these changes do not result in “excess profits” for insurance companies, Ingram said.

“This is about lowering premiums while providing support and protection for all Ontario drivers,” she said.

[email protected]

Bad news for crash victims

By Alan Shanoff, Toronto Sun

Finance Minister Charles Sousa’s claim Ontario has the most generous auto insurance benefits is nonsense

TORONTO – Last month’s Ontario budget continued the erosion of accident benefits for victims in motor vehicle accidents.
The reductions are most significant for those suffering from catastrophic injuries.
Since 1996, these victims were entitled to reasonable and necessary medical and rehabilitation services up to $1 million, in addition to up to $1 million in attendant care benefits.
That combined coverage of $2 million will now be cut by 50% to a combined $1 million.
It’s puzzling why the government would want to cut back benefits to those who need it most, especially since only 1% of accident victims suffer catastrophic injuries.
Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa stated, “Ontario is the most generous in Canada when it comes to providing coverage for auto insurance.”
I guess he isn’t aware Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec provide medical rehabilitation benefits in excess of Ontario’s $1 million, when medically warranted, for any motor vehicle accident victim.
At the other end of the spectrum, dealing with so-called minor injuries suffered by approximately 80% of accident victims, Ontario’s “generous” limit for medically necessary treatment is $3,500, including the cost of assessments, examinations and reports.
No other province mandates a cap on minor injuries.
Don’t think these “minor” injuries are insignificant.
They include dislocation of joints, partial tears of tendons, ligaments and muscles, contusions, abrasions, lacerations and whiplash not exhibiting neurological symptoms.
For serious injuries — neither minor nor catastrophic — medical and rehabilitation benefits are capped at $50,000 in Ontario. That compares favourably to Nova Scotia, PEI, Nunavut and the NWT, which each have a limit of $25,000, and equals the limit in Alberta and New Brunswick.
But it falls short of the limits in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
So, the most generous benefits in Canada? Hardly.
The lowering of benefits for catastrophic injuries is only one of many prejudicial changes to auto insurance coverage announced in the budget.
There’s also enhanced barriers imposed on plaintiffs suing for negligence arising out of auto accidents.
Most people are unaware of two barriers on the right to sue for damages resulting from harm suffered in an at fault auto accident.
First, there is a threshold test that must be satisfied before anyone can succeed in winning a lawsuit.
This law, introduced in 1996 and made more stringent in 2003, bars successful lawsuits unless plaintiffs can establish they suffer “from permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.”
To meet this test, various stringent conditions must be satisfied.
The threshold often prevents injured people from recovering damages for serious injuries that fail to meet its definition.
Second, there is a deductible that applies only to lawsuits against negligent auto drivers. It was increased from $15,000 to $30,000 in 2003 and applies to damages for pain and suffering of $100,000 or less.
The budget would index the deductible to inflation as of 2003.
According to personal injury lawyer Darcy Merkur, that would impose a deductible of about $37,000 on damage awards of about $123,000 or less. As an example, a damage award of $100,000 would be reduced to $63,000!
Having both a threshold and a deductible is redundant and only benefits insurance companies.
And why would the government choose to index amounts that favour insurance companies, while not indexing amounts that favour accident victims?
I didn’t see any proposal to index the minor injury cap of $3,500 or the medical/rehab cap of $50,000.
As FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform says, “The budget does nothing to ensure that insurer claims management practices are fair and there has been no action (to deal with) … the biased and corrupt insurer medical examination reports that are disqualifying innocent and legitimate accident victims.”
The government also announced it intends to amend the catastrophic impairment definition.
Does anyone doubt that these amendments will only serve to benefit insurance companies by restricting the number of victims who would otherwise qualify for the enhanced benefits applicable to the catastrophically impaired?

Advocacy groups to hold rally protesting very shady industry practices

In response to last week’s advancement of Bill 91, Building Ontario Up Act, two advocacy groups are organizing a public protest to be held on June 3rd at Queen’s Park, Toronto called #Rally4AccidentVictims.
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform and the Accident Benefit Coalition are not just protesting provincial government, however.
The groups feel that insurance companies also unfairly benefit from the legislation, and allege that provincial government’s proposals to reduce coverage for the catastrophically injured is uncalled for, given the industry’s profit margins.
“It is unacceptable to be giving away money to wealthy insurance companies who are already using some very shady business practices to deny a record number of claims,” reads a release from FAIR.
Among these practices, FAIR contends, are insurance companies employing “for-hire physicians who provide insurers with the medical reports used to decide whether or not an injured claimant is entitled to treatment and benefits.”
In addition, the non-profit association alleges that this arrangement allows insurance companies to place severely injured victims in numerous social services programs, forcing taxpayers to cover their expenses instead of insurance payouts.
“Our government is giving insurers a financial gift by allowing insurers to pay injured victims less and simultaneously download the cost of victims to the unsuspecting taxpayers who are the same drivers looking for a break on insurance premiums,” FAIR said.
The groups are also calling for supporters to sign an online petition.

Spread the Word

The proposed accident benefit cuts are a very bad accident waiting to happen. Now is the time to speak up. Accident victims are holding a Queen’s Park rally Wednesday June 3, Noon – 1:30 pm to voice concerns over the proposed cuts to accident benefits and tell their stories. Attend if you can, spread the word and sign the petition. Follow this link for more information on both http://www.neuroconnect.ca/

Ontario auto insurance changes slash benefits to seriously injured, critics say

CBC News

Critics say the Ontario Liberal government's proposed auto insurance changes mean people suffering debilitating injuries from car accidents are going to suffer even more.

Namely, it would allow companies to slash benefits to those who are seriously injured from car accidents.

A coalition made up of the Personal Injury Alliance, the Brain Injury Society of Toronto, the Spinal Cord Injury Ontario and individual victims held a press conference at Queen's Park Thursday afternoon to appeal for a stop to auto insurance changes.

    Ontario budget 2015: Drivers with snow tires to get insurance discount
    Auto insurance rates down in Ontario, but still not meeting target

“Even with the existing system, it's entirely inadequate and we're constantly telling our catastrophically injured people that they're going to have to do without because there's not enough money in the system,” said the Personal Injury Alliance's Troy Lehman.

“It's devastating news to have to break and if these changes go through, it's going to be twice as bad because half of the money for medical rehabilitation and care would disappear,” he said.

When it comes to catastrophic accidents, the Liberals proposed in the spring budget to combine services (such as attendant care and rehabilitation) to a single benefit with a limit of $1 million, down from a combined $2-million limit today. Drivers have the option to pay more for coverage up to $2 million.

The time to claim those benefits would also be cut in half — five years instead of the current 10.

There are also tweaks to basic auto insurance benefits. The government will combine medical and rehabilitation benefits with attendant care services as a single benefit set at $65,000. These separate benefits used to total more than $80,000. However, drivers will still be able to pay for increased coverage to a total of $1 million.
Ontario Liberals won't budge

These changes are part of an effort by the Liberals to reduce the costs of auto insurance to “bring these costs more in line with other provinces,” Finance Minister Charles Sousa said when the budget was tabled.

The Brain Injury Society of Toronto say the proposed changes will cost taxpayers more. If the bill is passed, the society says “the insurance industry will save money and increase profits.”

“I also have no doubt that those who are injured will go without, families will shoulder the burden alone, and our [publicly-funded] healthcare system will pick up the tab,” chairwoman Judy Moir said on Thursday.

But the finance minister said the government won't budge on the changes.

“The catastrophic insurance coverage is going to remain. It's going to be at a million dollars. We want our dispute resolutions to be expedited more quickly so that those that are victims get the coverage that they deserve,” he said.

“In fact, catastrophic insurance, period, is still going to be available in Ontario — not available anywhere else — and we're making it a million dollars, which is a substantive amount of coverage.”

How Much Have Ontario No-Fault Accident Benefits Been Eroding?

The recently announced auto insurance reforms included in the 2015 Ontario Budget will again reduce accident benefits as part of the government's efforts to reduce premiums in Ontario.  The government insists that benefits available are still generous.  I decided to compare the accident benefits available prior to the OMPP (Schedule C) under tort and the OMPP accident benefits with the new proposed limits announced in the Budget.  I used the Bank of Canada inflation calculator to convert past benefits into 2015 dollars.

The Schedule C accident benefits existed under the tort system prior to the introduction of no-fault.  Compensation was quite limited.  Income replacement benefits were available for 104 weeks, caregiver benefits for 12 weeks and medical benefits for 4 years.  The benefits aren't quite analogous but when converted into 2015 dollars, it tells an interesting story. Keep in mind there was no second tier of benefits under Schedule C for catastrophic injuries.  Those not at-fault would need to start an action to access additional compensation.

The table below shows that the Schedule C benefits are not that far off from the benefit levels announced in the Budget.  Not only are benefits being cut but inflation has also eroded them.

    pre-OMPP    pre-OMPP     2015 Budget
    (1989 $)    (2015 $)     
IRB     $140.00/week     $240.24/week     $400.00/week
caregivers     $70.00/week     $120.12/week     N/A*
non-earners     N/A     N/A     $185.00/week
medical/rehab     $25,000.00     $42,900.82     $65,000.00
medical/rehab (cat)     $25,000.00     $42,990.82     $1,000,000.00
attendant care     N/A     N/A     N/A**
* caregiver benefit currently only available for catastrophic injuries     
** attendant care included in medical/rehabilitation cap     

The indexed OMPP numbers are also revealing.  The table below shows that the accident benefits proposed in the recent provincial budget are, in some cases, less generous than the OMPP accident benefits even before adjusting for inflation.  Even those with catastrophic injuries are likely better off under the OMPP even though there was no higher tier of accident benefits available.  The OMPP provided all claimants with up to $1 million in combined medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits.  In 2015 dollars that works out to approximately $1.6 million in benefits.

    OMPP    OMPP     2015 Budget
    (1990 $)    (2015 $)     
IRB     $600.00/week     $977.81/week     $400.00/week
caregivers     $250.00/week     $407.42/week     N/A*
non-earners     $185.00/week     $301.49/week     $185.00/week
medical/rehab     $500,000.00     $814,838.71     $65,000.00
med/rehab (cat)     $500,000.00     $814,838.71     $1,000,000.00
attendant care     $500,000.00     $814,838.71     N/A**
* caregiver benefit currently only available for catastrophic injuries
** attendant care included in medical/rehabilitation cap     

From http://williehandler.blogspot.ca/