Blog – Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers
Does Canada need a Canadians with Disabilities Act?
Photo Credit: Secondarywaltz/Wikimedia Commons
When Canadians traveling abroad meet someone new, one of their first actions is usually to state very clearly that they’re not American. Indeed, Canada’s differences with the United States have in many ways come to define the country. Where Americans are brash and loud, Canadians are polite; where America lunges to close its borders, Canada’s remain resiliently open; where America is socially conservative, Canada leans left. Unfortunately, there are aspects of Canadian society which lag far behind its southern cousin, including the treatment of Canadians with disabilities.
Twenty-five years ago, the United States instituted its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil liberties law aiming to eliminate discrimination by creating and enforcing “standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities” at the federal level. In short, the ADA “gave disabled people the right to fully participate in everyday life,” wrote André Picard for the Globe and Mail, to “revolutionary effect.”
Meanwhile, Canada has no federal legislation mandating, for instance, that schools, sports stadiums, and transit buildings must be accessible. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines that people with disabilities are guaranteed “equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on … mental or physical disability,” and disabled people are protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. But a comprehensive Canadians with disabilities act specifically addressing the needs of disabled people in Canada would, as Barrier-Free Canada puts it, help “to achieve a barrier-free Canada for all persons with disabilities.”
The push for a Canadians with Disabilities Act has been adopted by several high-profile Canadians, including NDP Leader Tom Mulcair during last year’s election campaign and legendary Paralympic champion Rick Hansen. However, the experience of disabled Canadians failed to become a major talking point during the electoral campaign, and has been largely overlooked by the media. The result, as Picard notes, is that Canadians “continue to treat the inclusion of people with disabilities” in day to day society “as a privilege rather than a right.”
The number of Canadians living with a disability varies depending on definition, but it reliably falls in the four to five million person range. On the higher end, that accounts for approximately 14 per cent of the Canadian population (equal to the total number of visible minorities in the country). People with disabilities are also twice as likely to be unemployed, more likely to rely on government subsidies, and have lower incomes.
Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government promised a national disability act in 2006, but it was never delivered. Now, Justin Trudeau has made a national act a priority, with an aim to fill gaps in the country’s patchwork disability legislation. In a mandate letter to Canada’s new Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities Carla Qualtrough, Prime Minister Trudeau listed leading “an engagement process with provinces, territories, municipalities, and stakeholders that will lead to the passage of a Canadians with Disabilities Act” as a top priority.
“Usually the law doesn’t come into play until people are discriminated against,” said Minister Qualtrough. “You’re denied a place to live, or a service, and then we help you – but you’ve already been discriminated against. It feels like there’s a gap in legislation.”
While some people were born with their disability, others are acquired through injuries, negligence, or instances of medical malpractice. If you fall into the latter category, contact the personal injury lawyers at Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today to set up a free, no-obligation consultation.
Will motor vehicle accident victims be treated fairly by the Licence Appeals Tribunal
Photo credit: Robert Jack/Flickr
On November 20, 2014, Bill 15 was passed in the Province of Ontario’s legislature. Titled “Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates,” the Liberal government touted it as “a big win for consumers,” including motor vehicle accident victims.
“This act will deliver real results for Ontario drivers involved in traffic collisions or in need of roadside assistance,” said David Orazietti, Minister of Government and Consumer Services, in a provincial release. “We want consumers to be protected, and we want to make our roads safer.”
Despite the province’s protestations, several vocal critics have stepped forward to say the bill may actually discriminate against motor vehicle accident victims. The key point of criticism is the fact that no-fault accident benefits disputes between injury victims and their insurers can no longer by decided by the Superior Court or an arbitrator at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). Rather, beginning in April 2016, disputes will be heard by the Licence Appeals Tribunal (LAT), which handles disputes around compensation claims and licensing activities by a number of governmental ministries, including the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Education, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The decision-making shift presents several problems. To begin with, the LAT operates under strict guidelines and fast track timelines which may not allow for appropriate consideration of life-altering insurance claims.
But even more crucial is the LAT’s general lack of experience in handling motor vehicle accident benefits disputes. In the past year, Toronto Sun columnist Alan Shanoff has penned two illuminating articles regarding the LAT’s impending authority. In a piece published January 24, Shanoff points out that LAT members “have expertise in liquor licence appeals, reviews of medical suspension of drivers’ licences, motor vehicle impoundments and claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan,” but none in dealing with auto insurance claims.
The tribunal’s decision-making record regarding homeowner appeals is also cause for concern. According to Canadians for Properly Built Homes, the LAT sided with insurers in 96 per cent of cases between 2006 and 2013. A similar failure rate for motor vehicle accident victims could be devastating.
When the LAT begins accepting applications in 2016, they will do so under the province’s new Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System (AIRDS). Leading up to April, an advisory panel representing groups that have an interest in the areas of law, business, government, consumer groups and the insurance industry is meeting to provide guidance on the design and implementation of the system. Earlier this year FAIR, a non-profit association supporting motor vehicle accident victims through advocacy and education, published a letter to Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur which brought to light a lack of representation for accident victims on the advisory panel. The LAT’s advisory committee, FAIR claims, “is composed of insurer defence lawyers and legal experts and consultants without any presence of consumers or MVA [motor vehicle accident] victims or those who represent them.”
While the end results of the transfer of jurisdiction from the FSCO to the LAT will not be known until after the April 2016 activation date, Ontario’s Bill 15 threatens to leave motor vehicle accident victims worse off than they are today. As Mr. Shanoff wrote in his January column: “Shouldn’t we first be fixing LAT … before we throw 10,000 auto insurance disputes at it?”
If you or a member of your family has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today to set up a free, no-obligation consultation.
Researchers at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Hospital recently made history by safely breaching the blood-brain barrier
Photo courtesy Sunnybrook Hospital
Scientists at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Hospital made history this November when they safely breached the blood-brain barrier using focused ultrasound. The breakthrough is expected to improve medication delivery in the treatment of cancerous tumours, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s. It could also help to reduce the results of an incorrect or delayed diagnosis, which can be instigators of a medical malpractice case.
What is the blood-brain barrier (BBB)?
The blood-brain barrier lines the brain’s blood vessels and restricts the entry of large toxic substances from the bloodstream. Put simply, the BBB acts almost like a layer of saran wrap around the blood vessels. It allows only a select few molecules from entering, making it extremely effective in protecting the brain from invaders. However, its efficacy also makes it difficult to access the brain in order to deliver needed medication.
“The blood-brain barrier has been a persistent obstacle to delivering valuable therapies to treat disease such as tumours,” said Dr. Todd Mainprize, the study’s principal investigator and a Neurosurgeon at Sunnybrook, in a hospital release. “We are encouraged that we were able to temporarily open this barrier to deliver chemotherapy directly to the brain tumour.”
How was it opened?
The study was conducted on a 56-year-old woman with a malignant brain tumour. To begin the process, she was given a small dose of chemotherapy. She was then taken to an MRI suite where she underwent a number of MRI scans to pinpoint the locations in her brain which required treatment.
“The researchers administered microscopic bubbles into the patient’s bloodstream through an IV,” explains an article from Sunnybrook Hospital. “The microbubbles are smaller than red blood cells and pass harmlessly through the circulation. Once ready, the researchers used state-of-the-art MRI-guided focused low-intensity ultrasound (sound waves) to target blood vessels in the BBB area near the tumour.”
The sound waves caused the microbubbles to vibrate, which loosened tight junctions of the cells making up the blood-brain barrier. With these junctions loosened, the chemotherapy was able to flow through the barrier and deliver medication to the necessary regions.
What does the breakthrough mean for patients?
According to Sunnybrook Hospital, breaching the blood-brain barrier opens a new frontier in brain treatment. Better targeted and more effective delivery would mean less treatment, fewer side effects, and a better quality of life for patients suffering from brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, and some psychiatric conditions. The availability of advanced medical practices are beneficial for all Canadians, including those who have been injured as a result of medical malpractice.
However, it may be some time before the technique is widely adopted. November’s test was only the first in what could be a long string of experiments and trials.
“I want to stress that this has only been done in one patient,” Dr. Mainprize told Medscape Medical News. “This is a proof-of-concept phase 1 clinical study to make sure that when we open up the blood-brain barrier we don’t cause any hemorrhages or infection, and that we can safely and effectively deliver a drug where in the brain we want to.”
Despite Dr. Mainprize’s readiness to temper expectations, the test was described as an overwhelming success. While the Sunnybrook team had originally planned to conduct ten ultrasound tests during phase 1, it is now considering reducing that number to four before heading to stage 2.
Researchers in Toronto and around the world are constantly developing novel ways to treat illness and injuries. However, instances of medical malpractice are still widespread in Canada, and largely go unreported. If you or a member of your family believes they are the victim of medical malpractice, contact Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Mortality rate at for-profit nursing homes significantly higher than at non-profit facilities
A recent study conducted by the Bruyere Research Institute in Ottawa shows that residents of Ontario’s for-profit nursing homes suffer from significantly higher mortality and hospitalization rates than residents of non-profit facilities. The study followed more than 53,000 residents between January 2010 and March 2012, and found that for-profit residents were 33 per cent more likely to be hospitalized and 16 per cent more likely to die during the first six months of their stay. If a member of your family has experienced an insufficient standard of care at either a for- or non-profit long-term care facility, a personal injury lawyer can help you assess your options.
Researchers created an online calculator (projectbiglife.ca/elderly) that “predicts the risk of death for people living in nursing homes” within six months of their arrival. In addition to looking at whether the home is for- or non-profit, the calculator considers age, health, sex, marital status, and a number of other factors.
“These are not trivial numbers,” said researcher Dr. Peter Tanuseputro to CTV News. “If there’s a way that we can get to the bottom of this and correct it, we could potentially be preventing many, many hospitalizations and potentially many deaths.”
The study should be concerning to Ontarians for two key reasons: first, 60 per cent of Ontario’s 640 long-term care facilities are for-profit; and second, the population of Ontario is aging rapidly. When the province’s universal health care system was created over half a century ago, the average Ontarian was just 27 years old and less likely to be living with disease or complex health issues. Today, older Ontarians account for approximately 60 per cent of total hospital visits, and are living with “multiple health and functional issues, and with minimal social supports,” according to Statistics Canada.
In the coming decades, Ontario – and Canada as a whole – will become progressively older. Nearly one in four people nationwide will be 65 or older by 2030, compared to just 15 per cent in 2013. An older population means more hospital visits, and as it stands today the healthcare system is ill-prepared to care for the looming swell of patients. The expertise of seniors’ advocacy groups or a personal injury lawyer may be necessary unless the provincial and federal governments take steps to improve the standard of care for older Canadians.
While the Bruyere Institute study doesn’t offer any insight into why the mortality rate is so much higher at for-profit homes, some experts theorize that the facilities’ profit-driven model itself may be to blame.
“Ownership matters,” said Donna Rubin, CEO of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, to the Toronto Star. “(Non-profit homes) are not in it for the business of profit, so all surplus, if there is any, goes back into the home.”
Dr. Margaret McGregor, a family physician and researcher at the University of British Columbia, has also speculated that concern over earnings has led to a gap in care. Understaffing can lead to nursing errors, which may be a field of expertise for a personal injury lawyer.
“A lot of the research finds that for-profit facilities actually hire fewer staff,” Dr. McGregor told CTV News. “One can’t help but ask [if that is] because more staff affects the bottom line.”
Senior citizens are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Dementia rates are rising, with the number of afflicted Canadians expected to double in the next 20 years. When a resident of a long-term care facility experiences an insufficient standard of care, their options are limited. If a member of your family has suffered from inadequate care at an Ontario nursing home, contact a personal injury lawyer at Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today to set up a free, no-obligation consultation.
Digital health may transform how Canadians engage with their doctors
This November 16 to 22 was “Digital Health Week” in Canada. With virtual reality headsets selling like hotcakes and driverless cars roaming the California roads, it should be no surprise that the healthcare industry is attempting to leverage new technology to make life easier for patients. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are being widely adopted in primary care, telemedicine is gaining traction around the country, and, as Dr. Joshua Tepper wrote in a recent article for Huffington Post Canada, “even the stethoscope has gone digital.”
Digital health, in fact, is becoming a central aspect of day-to-day operations in Canadian hospitals, and has the capacity to greatly improve patient outcomes and access to healthcare.
Briefly, digital health is a new way for medical professionals to deliver care. Better Health Together, a public education campaign developed by Canada Health Infoway, describes it as “similar to the way technology has improved banking or the way we connect with family and friends.” Crucially, digital health improves patients’ access to information and allows them to stay engaged with their care team.
“Information is critical to quality care, whether the patients are in hospital or managing their conditions themselves at home,” said Michael Green, President and CEO of Infoway in a recent Hospital News article. “The vast majority of Canadians want secure access to online patient services, and never before has Canada been better positioned to do that.”
Access to digital health programs varies depending on where in Canada you reside. In Toronto, the Holland Bloorview and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centres each have initiatives underway, as does the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa. About 60 per cent of Canadians have access to technology that allows them to book lab tests and view results online.
Proponents of digital health would like to see service expanded.
“Digital health greatly improves the patient experience,” said cancer survivor Judith Morley, whose experience with online patient portals has made her a vocal supporter of digital health initiatives. “Whether you’re waiting to learn how your cancer treatment is progressing or you’re booking your child’s medical appointment, who wouldn’t rather have the ability to do those things online, quickly and securely?”
While the possibilities for digital health are undeniable, some healthcare professionals believe they should be regarded with reasonable skepticism.
“I think we should temper enthusiasm with a degree of caution,” wrote Dr. Tepper in his Huffington Post article, “and be open to learning from some of the challenges to date.”
One of Dr. Tepper’s primary concerns is privacy, which is vital to the healthcare sector. He also believes in the necessity of co-design between healthcare providers and patients in order to assure the intuitiveness and accessibility of programs.
Security concerns aside, though, Michael Green believes Canada is perfectly positioned for the widespread adoption of digital health.
“We are among the highest users of the internet in the world,” said Green. “Canadians go online to shop, to read or watch the news, to bank, and to communicate with friends. And research is showing that they know digital health makes health care easier and more convenient, and they want access for themselves.”
Medical practitioners believe the rise of digital health will improve the quality of care in Canada’s hospitals, but some medical errors are inevitable. If you or a member of your family has been injured by medical error, contact the medical malpractice lawyers at Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Could tougher drunk driving laws improve motor vehicle accident rates?
On September 27, Marco Muzzo, who had just landed in Toronto from Las Vegas, where he was attending a bachelor party, slammed his Jeep SUV into a minivan near Vaughan, Ontario. Three children and their grandfather died as a result of the tragic motor vehicle accident, which has brought the issue of impaired driving to the forefront of many Ontarians’ minds. Muzzo is facing 18 charges, including four for impaired driving causing death. The mother of the deceased children, Jennifer Neville-Lake, has urged the public to push for life sentences for drunk drivers who kill.
Regardless of the public’s fervour, though, most drunk drivers avoid harsh penalties. For example, in drunk driving case that transpired recently in Toronto, the driver, whose actions resulted in two deaths, was sentenced to just five years in prison. In fact, lenient sentencing may be a factor behind relatively stable rates of drunk driving, which plummeted from their 1980s levels, but which have plateaued since the turn of the century. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) estimates suggest that in 2010, more than a thousand people died as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by drunk driving. Only 125 of those deaths led to charges, with just 48 resulting in convictions.
According to the Globe and Mail: “a 2004 study from British Columbia of hospital data found that only 11 per cent of hospitalized drivers who were involved in crashes and had blood-alcohol levels above the legal maximum of 0.08 per cent were convicted of any criminal impaired-driving charges.”
Drunk driving is, of course, a nationwide problem. In 2011, Ontario actually had the lowest rate of impaired drivers involved in a motor vehicle accident. Compared to provinces like Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, Canada’s most populous province looks pretty good.
British Columbia, on the other hand, has the fourth highest rate of impaired driving accidents among the provinces. To combat the prevalence of impaired driving on the west coast, B.C. in 2010 passed a tough set of regulations which include the pioneering practice of instant roadside prohibitions, wherein a police officer may suspend the license of an inebriated driver, effective immediately.
The strict rules, while certainly steadfast in their aim of reducing motor vehicle accident rates, have faced some legal backlash. In 2012, the province made a number of changes which it said addressed all constitutional issues, and in 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court upheld British Columbia’s right to impose the law in two separate cases: Goodwin v. British Columbia and Wilson v. British Columbia. The ruling received positive feedback from a number of sources.
“From the perspective of my client, it’s a good day for those people who want to see preventable drunk driving injuries and deaths reduced in the country,” said Bryan Mackey, council for MADD, in an interview with Canadian Lawyer magazine. The ruling, he added, reinforced “the desirability of having provincial administrative regimes that are aimed at curbing impaired driving to compliment the criminal code provisions.
The Government of British Columbia was also happy with the ruling. “Our government believes strongly in our immediate roadside prohibition law and we know it saves lives – 260 since September 2010,” said B.C. Justice Minister Suzanna Anton. “I’m pleased to see the court agreed with our argument in the Wilson case and with the majority of our argument in the Goodwin case.”
If you or a loved one has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, whether or not is was caused by an impaired driver, contact the personal injury lawyers at Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today.
Will legalized marijuana result in more motor vehicle accidents?
Legalizing marijuana is a stated priority for Justin Trudeau’s newly elected Liberal government. While Canadians still have a bit of time to get used to the idea – full legalization could be two years away – it’s safe to say that legal pot is coming to a dispensary near you in the not-so-distant future.
For a significant portion of the population, the legalization of marijuana is something of a non-issue. While concerns over addiction, motor vehicle accidents, and public safety linger, a recent Forum Research survey found that approximately 30 per cent of Canadian adults would potentially purchase legal marijuana, including 18 per cent who said they’d used pot in the past year.
“Now that marijuana is a likelihood rather than a vague promise, Canadians are considering the issue more closely than in the past,” said Forum Research’s President, Lorne Bozinoff. “They are just as much in favour of legalization as they were before the election, if not more, but they want to see it strictly licensed and controlled, not grown in basements and sold in corner stores.”
The potential economic benefits of legalizing weed are a staple of the pro-legalization platform. In Colorado, where the first legal marijuana dispensaries opened in early 2014, the state government has collected $60 million in tax revenue and a further $13 million in licensing and fees. With Canada’s larger potential customer base, the country could be looking at nearly $1 billion per year in tax revenues.
However, while optimistic pundits laud legal weed’s potential as a governmental revenue driver, the potential for misuse and abuse continues to cause concern. Before legalization came into effect in Colorado, citizens naturally voiced worry about stoned drivers causing motor vehicle accidents and generally making roads less safe.
These concerns are not unfounded: when Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2001, it saw a sudden increase in drivers with weed in their systems. Indeed, a study from Columbia University states: “as medical marijuana sales expanded into 20 states, legal weed was detected in the bodies of dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to those who died behind the wheel in 1999.”
Despite that less than encouraging statistic, fatalities from motor vehicle accidents are down from their 2011 levels in both Colorado and Washington, where marijuana is also legal. While the number of drivers who were found to have marijuana in their systems has doubled in Colorado, the number of drivers over the legal limit has not risen substantially. In short, it is thus far difficult to determine whether legal marijuana has had a significant impact on road safety in the United States.
That being said, Canadian law enforcement can still learn from their colleagues to the south.
“We have talked to our counterparts in Colorado, and this is very preliminary, but they have seen an increase of impaired driving with marijuana use,” said Clive Weighill, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. “But it’s so preliminary yet. It could be that the police are looking for it a bit more because it’s legalized.”
While a recent study from the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that alcohol consumption is much more likely to result in motor vehicle accidents than marijuana, the bottom line is that pot slows reaction time and impairs judgement, and should never be consumed prior to driving.
If you or a member of you family has been injured on the road, contact one of Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers’ motor vehicle injury lawyers today for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Will driverless vehicles reduce motor vehicle accidents?
Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson/Flickr
Self-driving cars may seem like a far-off proposition, but in reality a number of high-profile automotive and tech companies are hard at work testing and perfecting their respective models. Audi, Nissan, Tesla, Uber, Delphi, and Google are each working on autonomous vehicle designs, including several that are being actively tested on American roads. While it’s unclear when these vehicles will be available for public consumption – optimists say by the end of 2016; other experts believe we may be a generation away – driverless automobiles have great potential not only for their novelty and convenience, but also for their capacity to greatly improve road safety by limiting motor vehicle accidents.
The idea of a driverless car being somehow safer than a human-piloted automobile may seem like a misnomer, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that driverless cars would, in fact, reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities we see on the road. The foundation for this claim stems from the fact that most accidents are caused by human error. In fact, the Eno Center for Transportation, America’s national leader in policy and professional development for the transportation industry, says that 90 per cent of all crashes are caused by preventable mistakes, including drunk driving, distracted driving, failing to remain in one lane, and failing to yield to the right of way.
Some proponents of driverless cars believe that putting computers behind the wheel would drastically reduce fatalities, and save billions of dollars in accident costs.
“In theory, if you have 100 percent fully autonomous vehicles on the road, while you still might have accidents on the margin in rare situations, you’re basically looking at anywhere from a 95 to 99.99 percent reduction in total fatalities and injuries on the road,” explained Ryan Hagemann, a civil liberties analyst at Niskanen Center.
To be clear, the prospect of an accident free, driverless society is a long way off: as they exist today autonomous cars cannot drive in heavy snow or rain; have difficulty making left hand turns against fast-moving traffic; and have no means of understanding hand signals, making eye contact, or obeying police directions.
“In the long run, I think that some of the autonomous technology will probably enhance safety,” said John M. Simpson, director of consumer relation at Consumer Watchdog. “But I think that it’s going to be quite a while until we get to that point – if we even can.”
Developing a means for humans and machines to co-exist is perhaps the primary barrier to driverless cars’ public introduction. Recently, Google has been testing 25 self-driving cars on public streets in Mountain View, California, in addition to a small fleet of autonomous Lexus SUVs in Austin, Texas. As of June, they had been involved in 14 minor motor vehicle accidents, each of which, Google claims, was caused by human errors in other vehicles.
Perhaps more encouragingly, Delphi’s Roadrunner vehicle recently completed the 3,400 mile cross-country trip from San Francisco to New York City. Ninety-nine per cent of the voyage, the company says, was fully automated.
The ability for autonomous vehicles to interact with human drivers is perhaps the biggest hurdle left facing the companies working toward a driverless future, but the safety potential of this development is clear. A largescale network of autonomous vehicles would almost certainly reduce motor vehicle accidents and in turn limit the number of injuries and fatalities we currently see on our roadways.
Until that time, Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers is here to help. If you or a member of your family has been involved in an automobile accident, contact Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers today to arrange a free, no obligation consultation.
Massive fundraising campaign to benefit spinal cord injury, brain injury victims
Where Incredible Happens fundraiser launch event
The Toronto Rehab Foundation launched an ambitious fundraising campaign in support of the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute this week. The campaign is aiming to raise $100-million, which Toronto Rehab Foundation President Cindy Yelle called “one of the city’s most ambitious fundraising campaigns.”
“But it is also one of its most important,” Yelle continued, “considering the positive effect it can have on the lives of people in need of physical rehabilitation after trauma, accidents, strokes and even cancer.”
Indeed, Toronto Rehab is a vital resource for acquired brain injury and spinal cord injury victims who are now living with disabilities. The Institute is considered the “world’s number one research rehabilitation centre,” and is at the cutting edge of rehabilitation program development.
Examples of Toronto Rehab’s life-changing work are plentiful. Recently, CBC’s documentary series Keeping Canada Alive looked at the story of Alex Dritsas who, at age 28, was left paralyzed from the neck down after a collision during a recreational hockey game resulted in a serious spinal cord injury. After emergency surgery, Dritsas underwent respiratory therapy, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, and physiotherapy at Toronto Rehab’s Lyndhurst Centre.
“Until I got here every single person believed I would never walk again,” Dritsas said in a Toronto Rehab Foundation news story. “Then literally on day one Jamie (physiotherapist) stood me up with my brother and got me on my feet for the first time in over a month.”
Today, Dritsas has relearned to stand, walk, and climb stairs. As an outpatient in the Spinal Cord Rehab program, he has returned to work as a realtor, and is hoping to get back on the ice as soon as possible.
Although moving, Dritsas’ story isn’t entirely unique: in December 2012, Robert MacDonald suffered a spinal cord injury from 30-foot fall while on vacation in Mexico. After years of treatment at the Lyndhurst Centre, MacDonald completed the 2015 Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Half-Marathon, raising upwards of $15,000 for the Toronto Rehab Foundation.
“This isn’t about me,” MacDonald said in an interview with the Toronto Star. “This is about the next me.”
Toronto Rehab’s job is larger, though, than fixing one spinal cord injury at a time. A recent study co-authored by the Institute’s Dr. Mark Bayley indicates that the number of Canadians living with long-term disability from strokes may rise up to 80 per cent over the next two decades.
“The expected increase is due to the aging population and improved early stroke care resulting in more stroke survivors,” explained Dr. Bayley. “As a result, there are more people living with the effects of stroke and this study quantifies the size of the impact. The results help us assess what the needs for rehab and community support will be for stroke survivors living with disability.”
With rehabilitative services likely to become increasingly necessary as the Canadian population ages, Toronto Rehab will have a growing role in keeping the population healthy. The Toronto Rehab Foundation’s $100-million fundraising goal will, according to a news release, accomplish the following:
- Help fund the hospital’s acquisition of advanced technologies and experiments
- Support facility construction and renovation
- Provide financial support for research, patient programs, and health education
- Attract and retain clinician scientists
- Endow academic chairs for healthcare practitioners
- Build endowments for annual patient programs, continuing medical education, and clinical research.
Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers is proud to support the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s vital research, which has crucial implications for victims of spinal cord injury, acquired brain injury, stroke, and other traumas. If you or a member of your family has suffered a serious personal injury, contact Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers for a free consultation today.
Falling TVs can result in childhood head or brain injury
Photo credit: mojzagrebinfo/pixabay
In the past decade, the likelihood of a child suffering a head or brain injury caused by a falling television has risen steadily, according to a new report published in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. In many respects, this is not surprising: televisions in general have become more common, and larger, heavier TVs are much more affordable than they once were. According to a press release from St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, televisions can now be found in 95 per cent of Canadian homes. The problem reaches south of the border into the United States, as well: the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported an increase in television-related injuries from 16,500 between 2006 and 2008 to 19,200 between 2008 and 2010.
“The kids at biggest risk are toddlers, so one to three-year-olds,” said lead report author Dr. Michael Cusimano, a neurosurgeon at St. Michael’s. “They’re occurring in older kids as well, but these injuries can be extremely severe in the younger kids – and they can be fatal.”
Indeed, between 2011 and 2013, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto treated more than 30 children for injuries caused by falling TVs. Of those, 16 had head injuries, 18 had fractures, and “less than five” died, according to the hospital. So while death remains fairly unlikely, the effects of a head or brain injury at a young age can be long-lasting and range from neurological deficit to hearing loss.
“It’s often like a crush injury,” said pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. James Drake in a Globe and Mail interview. “So it’s not what we would call a high-velocity head injury like you would have in a car accident. This is relatively low-velocity, but TVs are very heavy, so they sort of crush the skull. So that causes these fractures and often injures the nerves at the base of the skull that control the face and the eyes and the hearing. Many recover, but some are left with a permanent deficit.”
Besides the fact that toddlers are usually shorter than television stands, there are a number of factors that put them at highest risk. The first is that children between the ages of 2 and 5 generally spend a great deal of time watching television. According the Journal of Neurosurgery paper, children in this age range generally spend more than 32 hours per week in front of TVs, making them automatically more susceptible. They also have a tendency to climb on or play around furniture holding televisions, and are receiving less parental supervision than necessary. Dr. Cusimano’s paper examined nearly 30 studies from seven countries around the world, and found that more than 80 per cent of television injuries occurred at home, three quarters of which were not witnessed by caregivers.
In order to mitigate the risk of your child suffering a head or brain injury, a number of steps can be taken, including:
- Making children aware of the dangers of falling TVs
- Using a proper television stand in lieu of placing the TV on a high piece of furniture
- Attaching the television to a wall
- Avoiding placing toys or remote controls on top of the TV
- Setting regulations for anchoring televisions to walls or the ground, and having manufacturers include instructions on how to do so.
“Too many children are sustaining head trauma from an easily preventable TV toppling event,” Dr. Cusimano said in the St. Michael’s release. “We hope clinicians take a more active role as advocates for prevention of these injuries, legislators become more open to implementing changes to current regulations, and caregivers employ the suggested prevention at home.”
If a member of your family has suffered a head or brain injury caused by a falling television, contact a Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers personal injury lawyer and set up a free, no-obligation consultation today.
Organizations we support
