jdobbin Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories A paralyzed Tory MP has lost a bid to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear his case against Manitoba's public insurer.The court refused Thursday to hear Stephen Fletcher's appeal against a decision by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., which denied him more money for full-time care. As usual, the court gave no reasons for its decision. Fletcher, a Manitoba MP and junior cabinet minister, was paralyzed from the neck down in a 1996 accident in which his car hit a moose. This is the second time that Fletcher has been refused by the Supreme Court and one of a string of losses he has had with Manitoba Public Insurance. It is a tough call. While there is no denying he needs 24 hour care, the court ruled that the insurance company was under no obligation to pay for an assistant for party functions. Gary Doer said he was introducing an amendment to the MPI Act which may act with more assistance for Fletcher but it hasn't been tabled yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStoriesThis is the second time that Fletcher has been refused by the Supreme Court and one of a string of losses he has had with Manitoba Public Insurance. It is a tough call. While there is no denying he needs 24 hour care, the court ruled that the insurance company was under no obligation to pay for an assistant for party functions. Gary Doer said he was introducing an amendment to the MPI Act which may act with more assistance for Fletcher but it hasn't been tabled yet. Fletcher is a class-1 A-hole and I'm glad he lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 It is a tough call. While there is no denying he needs 24 hour care, the court ruled that the insurance company was under no obligation to pay for an assistant for party functions. Is it a tough call though? I understand he was paid the max allowed, or he signed up for. This seems, at least to me, that he got everything he had paid for, but then again, none of us expect to be in a wheelchair for the rest of our life. But, he hit a moose, and moose never show up for court, and if they do they claim poverty, those antlered shites them, and they never carry third party liability coverage. J/K, had he been hit by a third party, his money woes would have been greatly lessened. Just one of those it sucks, and it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Is it a tough call though? I understand he was paid the max allowed, or he signed up for. This seems, at least to me, that he got everything he had paid for, but then again, none of us expect to be in a wheelchair for the rest of our life. The tough call is that it is up to the discretion of the insurance company as the court stated. The insurance company decided what his level assistance is for a political job. What the insurance company did was legal and proper. It is why Doer said back earlier in the month that it requires an amendment to the act itself to offer more assistance. J/K, had he been hit by a third party, his money woes would have been greatly lessened.Just one of those it sucks, and it happens. I agree. I also agree that the insurance company did what was proper and legal. Assistance now lies in the political arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Fletcher is a class-1 A-hole and I'm glad he lost. I've never voted for him. As a politician and representative, I think he is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Since He is a MP he is then making at least 100.000.00 but probably more and he has excess to benefits and one being medical. It hard to feel sorry for him since he is working everyday and one has to wonder about his health. Couldn't he go on disability of some sort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Couldn't he go on disability of some sort? He is a politician, he already is doubly disabled. But to answer your question, he is working so disabled money is out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 The tough call is that it is up to the discretion of the insurance company as the court stated. What I bet is missing from that article is the cost that the ins co has paid to re-do his house, re-do his vehicle etc. His monthly stipend would be above and beyond those changes. They very easily could have paid out another $100G or more fitting in new bathtub with lift, ramps thru the home and leading into it, hand controls for his car......all paid by the ins co. Not to mention covering all the bills that are not covered by the Man-HIP (OHIP but for Manitoba?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 What I bet is missing from that article is the cost that the ins co has paid to re-do his house, re-do his vehicle etc. MPI has mentioned this when Fletcher has gone public with his complaints before. His monthly stipend would be above and beyond those changes. They very easily could have paid out another $100G or more fitting in new bathtub with lift, ramps thru the home and leading into it, hand controls for his car......all paid by the ins co. That is true. Not to mention covering all the bills that are not covered by the Man-HIP (OHIP but for Manitoba?) Yes, he has complaints about that too. His book last year was required reading last year by the people at the hospital where he was brought after his accident. Didn't have much good to say about the people there. Could have been the reason why his family doctor briefly decided to run against him last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Since He is a MP he is then making at least 100.000.00 but probably more and he has excess to benefits and one being medical. It hard to feel sorry for him since he is working everyday and one has to wonder about his health. Couldn't he go on disability of some sort? Base salary for an MP is about 155,000.00; but since he is a junior cabinet minister, he would get more. I heard him once in the House of Commons recite a poem he had written. It was very juvenile, and I was embarrassed. Just because he's disabled does not mean he isn't expected to do his job. I work with the disabled and we discussed it at a meeting. It set a very bad precedent. I lost a lot of respect for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Base salary for an MP is about 155,000.00; but since he is a junior cabinet minister, he would get more.I heard him once in the House of Commons recite a poem he had written. It was very juvenile, and I was embarrassed. Just because he's disabled does not mean he isn't expected to do his job. I work with the disabled and we discussed it at a meeting. It set a very bad precedent. I lost a lot of respect for him. You know, I sorry he in a wheel chair the rest of his life but there are other Canadians in the same way as he and they aren't making the money he is and are worse off than he. Since the Tories don't really like social programs, I think he joined the wrong party to change the disability of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 I may be wrong, and someone more legally inclined may be more interested in doing the legwork, but a quick look at Fletcher v Manitoba Public Insurance shows that Mr. Fletcher had not purchased UMC insurance. The original court decision ruled in his favour because allegedly he was not informed of the full range of coverage options. A subsequent appeal reversed that decision. The SCC now chooses not to hear the case. As I said, I looked very quickly at the decision, and someone who knows more about the legal system could probably give better information, but at first glance it seems like a sound decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Mr. Fletcher had not purchased UMC insurance.Are you serious? This guy did not buy UMP insurance protect himself from these circumstances? He deserves no sympathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Are you serious? This guy did not buy UMP insurance protect himself from these circumstances? He deserves no sympathy. Unless it's a different Fletcher. Punch "fletcher vs manitoba public insurance decision" into Google and you tell me what you find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Unless it's a different Fletcher. Punch "fletcher vs manitoba public insurance decision" into Google and you tell me what you find. Not the same case: the Fletcher case is too new to appear on the web as a SCC decision. Both appellants suffered severe injuries as a result of an automobile accident in the Province of Ontario and the appellant Cheryl Fletcher was rendered a paraplegic. The driver of the other vehicle, a Mr. Jean Piché, was found totally responsible for the collision and the appellants' damages were assessed at $1,387,090. The insurance available to indemnify Piché, however, was $500,000, leaving a shortfall of $887,090. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 That's a different case than the one I was looking at, I think. http://www.peelinstitute.com/Links/Fletche...itobaPublic.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 My bad, you're right. Wrong Fletcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.