|
March 30 , 2001 Letters
to the Editor -- Winnipeg Free Press Dear Editor, I am writing to correct some factual errors that appeared in your column "Finding Fault with No-Fault System (March 28, 2001.)" In 1994, the Manitoba legislature replaced tort compensation with the Personal Injury Protection Plan. The plan entitles all Manitobans injured in automobile accidents anywhere in Canada and the United States to disability compensation regardless of who is "at fault". The phrase no-fault does not mean that MPI does not hold people accountable for accidents they cause. It means that anyone injured in an automobile accident should be entitled to protection. The "no-fault" plan is based on the same principles as other disability plans, only instead of the injury resulting from a fall from a ladder when painting your house, a broken leg when hunting, or whiplash when water-skiing, the injury is a result of an automobile accident. Compensation paid out under this plan includes loss of income, medical expenses, rehabilitation expenses, travel expenses, permanent impairment payments, death payments, funeral expenses, occupational therapy, and the list goes on. As the column states, MPI does use an impairment schedule to determine entitlements when someone has a permanent disability. This component of the plan was recently endorsed by an independent committee reviewing Saskatchewan's personal injury protection plan. Last December, to improve fairness within Saskatchewan's personal injury protection plan, the committee recommended Saskatchewan Government Insurance adopt MPI's impairment schedule. The column contains three factual errors. It states "Why does the Ombudsman's 1999 Annual Report show that there are more complaints about Autopac than any other source?" In that report, 128 complaints about Manitoba Public Insurance were lodged compared to 296 complaints about the Department of Justice. It should also be noted that in 2000, there were 72 formal complaints made against MPI - a reduction of 56 or 78%. In reference to the Review Commission's 54 recommendations, the column states "Mr. Uskiw estimates that more than two-thirds of the recommendations have not been implemented," The fact is that the government has accepted two-thirds of the 54 recommendations and MPI has implemented the changes. The third factual error is the statement that "If victims disagree (with Manitoba Public Insurance decisions) their only recourse is to appeal Autopac's ruling to Autopac." Virtually every decision it makes can be appealed to a body outside the Corporation. In the case of injuries, all decisions made about injury compensation can be appealed to The Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission that is completely independent of Manitoba Public Insurance. This Commission, which reports to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has full power to overturn, modify or uphold MPI claim decisions. If dissatisfied with our injury compensation decisions, we encourage people to use the dispute resolution steps, including the Appeal Commission. The average number of appeals for the past five years is 160 per year. The average number of injury claims for those five years is 12,157 per year. The suggestion that appeals be put into the court environment is an expensive and time-consuming suggestion for which Mr. Uskiw offered no evidence of benefit to the customer. The appeal process is intended to provide enough informality that a person can go through without legal counsel and make their case. Manitoba Public Insurance does not send a "battery of lawyers" to appeal hearings but sends one representative who must defend the Corporation's decisions. The purpose of the Appeal Commission is to ensure that the correct decision is made. The Commission established its rules to support and encourage people who dispute our decisions. It is not a biased process but a cost efficient and objective process easily used by our customers. It is unfortunate that, despite being unhappy with her claim, the individual named in the column has not made use of any of the appeal mechanisms that are open to her and that have proven to be effective. It should be noted too, that the goal of the Personal Injury Protection Plan is to return Manitobans who are injured in vehicle collisions to return to health as close as possible to the condition they were in before the crash. The coverage provided under the plan ensures victims of accidents receive the benefits they need for as long as they are needed - not until the money from a settlement runs out. In other words, Manitoba's public insurer is truly on "your side" when you need us. Sincerely, John
Douglas
|