QTMG PROFILES: Mikolaj Grodzki

Perhaps you have stumbled across this article because you are looking for a lawyer. Specifically a personal injury lawyer. If so, we are pleased to introduce you to Mikolaj Grodzki, a partner at the law firm of Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, personal injury lawyers Ottawa. Mr. Grodzki is first and foremost a compassionate man with a keen sense of justice. Having worked in the insurance defence industry he has well developed understanding of the challenges faced by injury victims and how the insurance industry can sometimes stand in the way of Justice for those injury victims. Mr. Grodzki now only works for injury victims and he largely confines his practice to motor-vehicle accident / car accident / motorcycle accident law. Why a confined practice? The fact is that insurance law in Ontario, as it relates to car accidents / motor-vehicle accidents is increasingly complex. To be highly effective and successful in helping injury victims it is Mr. Grodzki's opinion that you can not dabble in many different areas of law without losing the specialized knowledge that comes from extensive experience. That kind of experience is what every injury victim should have working for them. Asked about how an injury victim should hire a lawyer, Mr. Grodzki said that " the key is to meet me, let us talk about what happened, let me explain how I can help, and let me tell you how I am working for you." At the end of that meeting, "ask yourself if you trust me, did I answer your questions, and do you believe me". When you can answer those questions affirmatively you know you've found your lawyer. Mr. Grodzki has a flexible work schedule with extended hours. His three young children keep him and his wife busy at their home in Orleans, Ontario. Mr. Grodzki will often make house-calls and hospital visits to clients all over eastern Ontario. Sometimes it just isn't possible for a client to travel to his his downtown Ottawa office. Mr. Grodzki's Polish heritage allows him to speak with his clients in Polish though all legal work is necessarily completed in English or French. If you or someone you know needs a personal injury lawyer, consider giving Mr. Grodzki a call. He would be pleased to hear from you.

SERIOUS INJURIES AND FUTURE INCOME LOSS

Future Income Loss---After a full recovery?
By Michael K. E. Thiele

Let us presume that a victim suffers an injury to her wrist in a slip and fall accident. The resulting fracture is severe and recovery from the injury takes about a year. During the year that it took to recover, the victim was unable to work as effectively in her job. Nevertheless she forced herself to go to work as she was self employed and staying home was not an option. Consequently, her income dropped by 30% The drop in income was calculated by comparing her immediate pre-injury annual income with the immediate post accident annual income. Other evidence demonstrates that she was unable to work as much nor as effectively due to the injury.


In the second year, post accident, income levels returned to normal levels as compared to pre-accident earnings and based on income earned, it appears that the victim was back to “normal”. Does this mean that the ability to recover damages for loss of future income is concluded? The argument against recovery of additional damages is that there is a full recovery from the injury, income levels have returned to normal, and any future losses are speculative in nature.

Why then does the victim still want to pursue future income loss after a full recovery? The answer lies in the fact that full recovery from a severe injury is unlikely. Even if recovery is such that for a period of time there is little or no apparent impact of the injury (i.e. the victim seems fine), the reality of most serious injuries is that there is a risk of reoccurrence of impairment from the injury at a future date. A prime and common example is the occurrence of arthritis some time after the healing of broken bones.

The risk of reoccurrence of impairment from the injury and the loss of income that it may cause is a matter that must be compensated when resolving a claim.

The legal test in determining whether there is a compensable prospective future income loss (in the circumstances described in this post) is whether there is a real and substantial risk that future pecuniary loss will occur. The argument for loss of future income loss will not be successful if the exercise is purely speculative.

Given the legal test of real and substantial risk, it is imperative that in preparing a claim that time is taken to obtain expert evidence establishing what may arise in the future as a result of the injury a well as the likelihood of that happening. To successfully claim future income loss (as discussed herein) it is critically important to consider the elements of the real and substantial risk test and to marshal evidence that squarely addresses the evidentiary burden in proving that the injury will have symptoms that will likely materialize and those symptoms will cause an impairment that causes damage (i.e. income loss). The goal in presenting this evidence is to assist the Court in assessing the severity and likelihood of the risks that may materialize from the injury in the future.

Plant Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki PC considers the availability of damages for this kind of loss in each case. Injury victims should not be deprived of these types of damages just because it seems like there has been a full recovery from the injury. For this reason it is important to work closely with an injury victim’s doctor(s) and to seek expert medical opinion with respect to not only what has happened, but indeed what may happen in the future.

Government of Ontario responds to Charles Beer review of the AODA

The Government of Ontario has responded to the Beer Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The response addresses the recommendations to harmonize accessibility standards, renew leadership, establish an Ontario Accessibility Standards Board and repeal the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), which preceded the AODA.

The government agrees with the suggestion to harmonize the standards. The government will integrate and align the information and communications, transportation and employment standards. They intend to complete the process and put the integrated regulations in force by 2011. In 2013, the customer service standard will also be integrated.

In response to the call for renewed leadership, the government states that it will continue to champion accessibility.

Staff at the Ministry of Community and Social Services have been asked to review Mr. Beer's recommendation to establish an Ontario Accessibility Standards Board and will report back to the minister by early 2011. The government's focus will remain on completing the standards so no organizational changes are being contemplated at present.

The ODA will be repealed once all five standards under the AODA are in place.

The Beer Report noted that Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees have an important role to play in achieving the vision of an accessible Ontario. The government response confirms that the MAACs will remain in place and the ministry will continue to work closely with them.

For details, see "Government of Ontario Response to Charles Beer Report," August 10, 2010, at www.mcss.gov.on.ca